. the project sponsor is a musician, so there could be noise. some of the proposals include the removal of the fourth floor, and that the modern design would be more appropriate if the surrounding buildings were in a very architectural side. since requests by members of the public, the project has been modified not to require a parking variance. now, two spaces in tandem are being provided of the project. another revision occurred after the filing of the public discretionary review request. the upper floor has been set back 15 feet. it meets the planning code, particularly 317. the project also complies with residential design guidelines.

the concerns of the public are not found to be exceptional or extraordinary. the department recommends approval of the demolition and the new construction project. i will be available for any questions. president olague: whenever order you choose to speak again. there are only three of you? ok. >> my name is robbie van [unintelligible] . i have lived on the street for 16 years. i am wearing a t-shirt. i have four points i would like to make. this is who will maps. i could not find anything

better. the property in question is 45 grand -- 45 grattan. the process being followed here is being abused. the proposed residencts in the evening of impact did not receive this document until thanksgiving and were completely unaware of the development going on in the neighborhood. we received a document a week before things giving. people were heading out. it proved to be difficult to follow up and understand the process. we do not understand this process. i have tried to come up to speed on a very quickly. we tried to understand the rules and regulations. but we find ourselves at a disadvantage, with an

individual who clearly understands how this process works, what determines are, and so on. the fact that we are here so late this incumbent of that. we had many more people here willing to speak out about this project. they just could not stay long enough. the date of this hearing was originally january 20. the property developer asked to postpone the project, knowing full well that everyone would put this on their calendar and as a result miss it and not be able to be here and speak my second point is this picture here is the picture of the property that is opposite me. here is a letter. the commission appears to be -- the planning, department is

being inconsistent in its application of the rules. 45 alma was denied over seven times on the basis of being a historic building. 45 grattan is virtually identical to the building at 45 alma. thirdly, the bulk and size. our primary issue is the bulk and size of this building. it is the fourth floor. it creates practically all the objections. over 68 people signed the petition. these were not random people. these were all people in the neighborhood. we were able to get the signatures in a matter of days, due to the high level of feeling around this.

this many people have never filed an objection to the project previously. there has been and on -- an enormous amount of development in the past two years, and i have never filed an objection. this is the first time it has happened. our desires have not been incorporated into the plan. this creates financial hardship for many of the folks involved. much of the material you receive from the project request your -- requestor are clever, but inaccurate. this is a view from one of the neighbors at 36, -- 36 alma.

this building is going to be a large impact to this person. here is me. this is the building. it is really big. as i said, in summary, our objection is the fourth floor. everything about it, we could live with. but that top part has been described as fairly unacceptable to a lot of folks. >> i am jan ross. >> i am geoff ross. >> live across the street. i am concerned by the new set back from the property line and how it was adopted. only the neighbors were invited to the meeting.

were we included, we would have raised issues before the application to the planning department was made. our household should have received an invitation. only two of 17 invitations were received. that is all the people in the three buildings across the street and on either side. after the meeting, neighbors to the left and right got an agreement from the sponsors that the new building would not infringe on their backyard. thus, the building was pushed up to the new setback, 6.5 feet from their property line. i love living on grattan street. right now, the fact that the streets are narrow only adversely affect striving -- affects driving. we often cannot get out of our driveway if someone is parked

across the street, it is so narrow. moving this house forward to the 6.5 foot setback on such a narrow street would decrease the light and openness of the street. as you can see from this drawing, the house is 37 and 41 are recessed 11 feet 9 inches from their property line. this new house is one to be 6.5 feet from the property line. many people enjoy working on our block. the house will affect many people. the project sponsors response to our dr is to say price that it worked with neighbors from the

east and west early on and made plans with them in mind. had more of us been invited to that first meeting, they would not have planned to push the house forward instead of back. the rest of the neighbors -- i am going to let john -- let jeff go. >> we are speaking on behalf of 68 members. the 68 members who signed that where people who have lived in the neighborhood. the signatures were collected in three days because we had to get them to you by generate 20. the reason was the overwhelming reaction to the large house that has already been built on the street. when you look at this house, you can see it is not in character with the neighborhood. there is nothing about it that is in character. it is described as modest by the architect.

there is nothing modest. it is described as consistent with building materials because they use wood and glass. there is nothing consistent about it. they want to demolish a 96-year- old 1-family building and allegedly billed two units. but who is going to live in the other unit? their grandmother. this is not about adding housing start to the city. we are demolishing a usable 1- family building that fits the character of the neighborhood to put up a large house for a family and their grandmother, when she visits from china, which is where she lives. it is deceptive to insist that are demolishing -- and the planning departments seem to have bought that argument that this is inappropriate demolition. next, they claim the building is in scale. yet, if you look at their own language, because they are inconsistent, they point out that the reason they need the

fourth story is because if you only looked at the three, the building would present as squawked and blocky. it is caught and balky. they said, "don't worry about the four story. you won't see it from the street." who will see this elegant structure they describe? if you look at this carefully, they are not being honest with you. they were not honest with the neighbors. we never knew anything about it. we found out about it before thanksgiving. we got this in right on the deadline. thank you. president olague: is there a third dr requestor? >> can i get the screen, please? good evening, commission. thank you for hearing last night. i know it has been a very long day, but i hope i can get your

attention. this is an important issue for a lot of citizens tonight. i think you need a seventh hour stretch given how long this has gone. we appreciate your continued attention on this. president olague: we state your name? >> my name is john broandon. and across the street from the proposed development at 36 grattan street. i first came into the neighborhood around 16 years ago. i am a long-time resident of the bay area. why are we destroying a perfectly good, beautiful home that fits the nature and character of the never heard? second, why would we replace it, if you do decide to repair place to come up with a building that is so far out of the character? i think you will find from our discussions here a lot of questions. there are a lot of questions

about the application in front of you, and i have a lot of concerns, and i think you should, about what has been presented to you, and if things have been misrepresented to you. there are a lot of questions here. i think the conservative approach for you would be to deny, or at least to give more time and opportunity to evaluate what is proposed. once this building is knocked down, it is not coming back. there is an identical building one block away which was found to have historical importance here. why are we knocking down this building? what questions should you have about the applications, which have been professionally done that for you? they have told you there is very little attention to design. what i am quoting from is the description from the sale of the property.

"there is a plethora of details, wainscoting, china cabinets, hardwood floors." that is the reality. what they tell you in the application is it is beyond its practical life span. if you look at how it is described when they bought it, "gracious living." i hope you do not make your decision yet, but take more time on this. this is a key argument through this. i have been in the building many times. there are two functional bedrooms. if family of four were the most recent residence and had a happy time. it is actually a very beautiful building. i will show you a few pictures of what is there now. it is not what is portrayed to you as something that is non- functional and beyond its life span. here is the upper bedroom that is there. you concede this is actually a

very beautiful building with a lot of beautiful detail that is characteristic of the neighborhood we have there. once you destroy this, it is not coming back. the building the have showed you is very different than what was being described here. you can see the beautiful details that are there. i think you want to very carefully consider the decision to first demolish this building. let us talk about what they are putting in its place. as has been shown, we have made one request and one request only to the developers. their celebrity architect -- it is very flashy, what is being done here. the project for sure who you will soon hear from -- we have made one request. make this building in line with the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood. bring us a three-story structure

that will look and feel like all the other buildings here. if you are going to destroy its perfectly functional building, that is the only thing we ask for. the current proposal does not maintain that character. instead, you end up with a menacing mcmansion. it threatens the unique character of the block. there are few other parts of the city where you see children playing on the street. you will see in front of that building that is gone to block their light, young children who are residents of the neighborhood drawing, playing ball. you do not find that often. as you hear, these people want a place for their children. but they are taking away what benefits those children. president olague: we have a few cards. family -- emily casnoka, david

burns, mason nugent, deborah dowden. it is two minutes for these remaining projects. >> mining is mason -- my name is mason nugent. i live across the street and three doors up. the main thing i think we are reacting to, the signers of the petition, is the size of the building. if you compare the ratio of the building to the other buildings in the neighborhood, you will find it is 12% larger than the largest building and about 75% larger than an average building in the neighborhood, when considering its relationship to the lot is built on. also being built on the south

side of the street, we are currently very lucky that the three buildings in the middle of the block are either set far enough back or are short enough that it allows light to leak through from the south. this building will pretty convincingly, with its mass, block the light coming through. i hope you will take that into consideration. president olague: it is speakers in support of the dr requestor that we are hearing now. >> i am john derryburry. i have lived on the street for 18 years. i want to echo my neighbors. this building is out of character in mass and scale with other buildings on the block. there are no other four story buildings, set back on the top or not. there are no four story buildings.

this is a street where children draw in chalk on the sidewalk. that is amazing. the building is going to cast a shadow and take up the label public space. it is an intrusion on the public's face. -- the public space. it will also block light and air. but they are saying in a slick presentation that other buildings of this height are in the block. those buildings have peaked roofs. this does not. we are making a single request, which is to remove the fourth floor. we believe the request is reasonable. it is important to point out that the developer has not met their burden of neighborhood cooperation or communication, or being a good neighbor. we have asked several times to meet with the owners.

where are the owners tonight? they are not in the room. we have never met them. they sought to divide and conquer their neighbors are requesting private meetings. we have asked to meet in a group. they are not talking to us. that is not good. thank you for considering the dr. president olague: thank you. >> i am isaac goodfriend, a 30 year resident. i live at 54 alma. as you know, this is a very densely populated area. putting this massive building, which is out of character and not compatible with the design and the neighborhood, i think is a christmas justice. -- is a gross misjustice.

my concern for the neighborhood is that this will set a trend of four large four story buildings, and will deter from family-style buildings that confirm -- that conform with the design and the historical significance of the area. the fact that our neighbors across the street at 45 alma were denied seven times almost the exact type of building that has now received a permit to put this massive structure -- i do not understand. there is no consistency here. we cannot have it both ways. it is beyond my understanding. also, i wanted to put in vinyl

windows, and that was denied because it is not compatible with the design and character of the neighborhood. how is this building, which is a box, compatible with the structure where there is gingerbread, victorians, an elizabethan-style buildings? it makes no sense to me. the other aspect, from a personal perspective -- our view is going to be blocked. >> good evening. my name is jeff nokes. i want to begin by thanking you to -- thanking you for your service to san francisco.

this is not really about adding more units. you are not going to be put in another unit in service. i have two main problems with this beyond the massive size that you have heard. the first is the out of character and nature of it. in the applicant proposal, they use the term "although modern" multiple times. it is modern. it is a lovely building. it would be great if it was in the south beach area. but it is not here. if it is billed as it is, in a couple of years, if somebody was to ask a question which building is out of character, they would

go 45 grattan. the second issue i have is they are going to be pulling the building forward, toward the street. we have a pile of kids in the neighborhood. you have heard people already talking about how they might go up the street and draw with chalk. there is a school on the next block, a playground on another block, and at halloween there are 5000 kids walking the streets in the dark. what we need is more sidewalk space, not less. i ask you do the right thing here. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment in support of the dr requestor? seeing none, project sponsor.

>> thank you, president olague. president olague: the usual five minutes. >> i have three dr. president olague: you know better. you have been here many times. >> you gave me before -- president olague: i did not. you should review the minutes. >> i am an architect who has practiced in san francisco for 15 years, trying to bridge traditional and modern construction throughout the city. the slide in front of you shows examples of our recent work and the neighborhoods in which these projects are located. my firm has been widely recognized for its ability to integrate all and new, notably in 2008, when i was named the

architect of continuity. in 2010, i was selected by the department of public works to provide architectural services to the city as part of san francisco's promotion of design excellence. i am an adjunct professor of architecture at the california college of the arts and chair of the architecture and design forum. design always starts with analysis. the proximity to major parks in this area make of a verdant landscape distinct from other san francisco neighborhoods. on grattan, there are no prevailing styles, materials, and ships. there are material stories of two stories of one material over a base of another material. windows are often stacked. these underlying rhythms and

themes are the starting point for our strategy and design. my clients asked me to design a home for their family of five, plus an additional studio apartment to be used by their mother. they asked that the home be simple and very, flooded with natural daylight. they did not want an enormous house -- just one big enough. at 57 feet long, a small average for san francisco, the compact footprint of the building increases the mid blocked open space by several feet and the plan double area of the front sidewalk. in large as open space and provides excellent sustainability performance with more permeable ground area and maximized exposure to light and air. the massing of the building is designed to align with the prevailing party and of the neighborhood. the geometry takes cues directly from 37 and 41 grattan without

imitating either. the building is classically portion, with a base, middle, and pop. the base and pop art in darker materials and bracket the letter midsection. the shift of the millions create shuttle, relief, and depth. wood siding, decorative glass, and dark trim. deciding likens the blocks because its scale and texture -- the siding lightens the blocks because of its scale and texture. panels provide privacy, while being more friendly thatn curtains. dark wood trim adds richness. the careful craftsmanship and intimacy of construction will be

a friendly addition to the street, whose character represents the diversity exemplary of san francisco. we are not pushing the building forward. it is very close to the building wall. we are actually increasing the amount of sidewalk space, i would say. president olague: you have five minutes. i do not know how many minutes are left. >> i gave the initial. i will take the next three minutes. president olague: whatever time you have. two minutes for the public on this project. whatever works. we're hearing for project >> thank