this building does not have proper bedposts. it has outlived its useful life. it will be replaced by something that is suitable for its setting. the top floor is 6 feet higher. each of the three dr requestors have a larger mass than the building we are proposing. this building is perfectly suitable and it is well balanced for the bloc and for the neighborhood. we are back from the home builder from the sidewalk. we are pushing back. the top floor is 22 feet back from the sidewalk. this is a well balanced, well

stage, well-placed to building. this is the guideline that they looked at as a mental block character. there is no gingerbread victorian on this block. they are on a block of well- preserved and craftsmen. it is a mixed the visual character. directly across the street, this is the house. you can see the newly shingled building on the other side is just that 40 feet. these are buildings over a base. with a habitable level on the ground floor. they have a roof behind the st. -- this tree at 42 feet. [chime]

president olague: thank you. dr. requestors, you have two minutes each. project sponsors supporters, sorry about that. i am getting carried away here. the other mic. >> ok, my name is susan. [unintelligible] i would like to spend time with my daughter. and i -- so that is my speech.

president olague: thank you. any additional speakers in support of the project spon sor? >> and the owner of saturn construction. i am here to discuss why we think it makes more sense deconstructs the existing housing index -- two deconstructs the existing house and replace it with a new one. we feel this is because this is more energy-efficient. i think we should donate all of these out -- at salvageable parts for reuse. the argument is based on three main points. i have been remodeling houses in

this city my entire adult life. i have experienced the inefficiency having to renovate an existing structure that has been stripped down. this requires extensive shoring. the walls left in place are generally waterproof. they don't have your plywood. it will shorten the life of the structure and in the increasing chances. the longer a construction project takes, the greater the resources. it includes labor costs, energy usage, getting to and from the job. and more wear and tear on the neighborhood. we are generally a nuisance to the surrounding area.

the second point is energy efficiency. there is a great energy and expense to heat and cool it. new houses are more airtight, they have less members, and there is a greater latitude for the design element. lastly is salvage and recycling. [chime] president olague: thank you. >> hi, my name is patty, thank you for the opportunity to speak. they are on tour right now. they cannot be here. they tried to meet with many of the neighbors to talk about their plan. the house that exists right now does not have a proper bedroom. it has an attic with no proper

means of egress. it is not really a good house for the neighborhood. the kids can play in all kinds of neighborhoods and it is a beautiful thing. it will be a really wonderful family home. it will make the neighborhood better. which is a good thing. >> are there additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? you will have two minutes each. >> thank you. the owners never tried to meet with any of us. we requested a meeting to discuss the property development and we never received any reply. we got an e-mail back from germany into the games began.

not one person stood up and said, keep doing it. the overwhelming majority are saying please do not perform -- to demolish the existing building. it shows that they will put solar panels on the roof. i have solar panels on my roof. if you put panels flat, they done to generate any electricity. they have to be at least a four- foot rake. ten-foot high up. lastly, everything i'm reading says the most energy-efficient buildings are the ones that you don't knock down.

the data suggests putting that thing in place. president olague: thank you. >> for this process to work, you have to rely on the information you get from the project sponsor. this evening, they stood up and told you i have three stories over a bay. my next-door neighbor's house is the same height as mine. it is the same height. he told the that they want at housing. you heard that his mother lives in san jose and they will occupy the studio apartment. this is a very large mansion that is being built by a rock star and comes here occasionally. they own the property for at least a year and a half. we are across the street.

they rented the property for a year. that property was not granted for -- rented. they occupied it happily. we got to know them. we never met the owners. this was scheduled at their request. they wanted to move because it is a friendly neighborhood. as you saw, 68 people came together to let you know that this is not consistent with our neighborhood. this is not who we are. we have worked together, we raised our children together. these people have not understood what this neighborhood is about and they want to impose their style. it is a gift we would like to return. we did not ask for it. it is not consistent. the way they have approached you

and us is not consistent with the way the planning commission works. we urge you to grant to the review. -- grant the review. >> i would like to emphasize a couple of points. the requests we made were reasonable. the owners never met with us despite multiple requests from our group to meet with them. a three story building would be in line and consistent. second, the property developers have not met their burden. look closely at the information that is being provided to you. a lot of the information is being misrepresented. it is very important because the decision you are about to make could lead to the destruction of a piece of property that would

leave the same building in another part of the neighborhood that has been found to be historical. i think if you look at the model, it does not fit in with the neighborhood that we have built here in san francisco. we are proud of it and we are very unique. once you approve it, it cannot be returned. one thing that is important, while you have a celebrity architect, as you noted yourself, he has been here a very long time. we have been basically bowled over by this process. every maneuver that has been possible in order to get this through has been done. you want to be very careful as you look at this. three stories was sufficient.

what is being proposed is really out of character with the neighborhood. i encourage you to ask for the further review. [chime] president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> if we can go to the computer, please. before i get to them, i would like to point out that we had two group meetings, and several with other members as well. there has been a lot of review of this. we have pushed substantially back from the street. we are offering a lot of math. this is the existing house.

this would be a buildable volume if we are trying to retain the existing house. this is the maximum buildable area. this is what we are proposing. a much smaller building that is allowable by code. it is a very interesting problem being posed by this site. you can see the hash mark buildings across the street and behind us are the ones that are the dr requestors. they are larger buildings with larger footprints. we are doing this on a 125 foot lot. it is very appropriately designed. we are in full compliance. the planning department recommends approval. i want to point out the

residential design guidelines suggested this. this is what the original guidelines guide us to do. we have done something far less massive and far more appropriate for this site. the top is set back 22 feet from the property line. this is 15 feet from the property line with a projection over the sidewalk. we are pushing back from the sidewalk. the post has stairs and an entryway which is being cleared. that we are overbearing on the sidewalk is wrong. we will be providing more space in the front setback. we are not reaching the level of extraordinary exceptional circumstances. this is a good building for this site. it is very carefully designed.

i believe it is worthy of your approval. president olague: the public hearing is closed. commissioner antonini: i am usually very supportive of a family trying to develop something to meet their needs. this one kind of goes over the line a little bit. first of all, the existing building is 1915. it is a problem. they would probably have to be raised up before. to make it to meet the family needs, you would have to do quite a bit too late. i would certainly like to hear what the commissioners have to say. on the issue of the new construction, this is a beautifully designed, but it does not fit on the street.

it does not matter whether there is a variety of different styles, they have something in common. in a kind of contrast, we just heard as far as the facade was concerned, it was a contemporary building but it fit very nicely with the other homes on that street. it could be done. as far as the height issue, i am not as concerned. certainly a pitched roof or something similar would fit in very nicely and would medicaid some of the concerns about the top floor even though it is set back. the window treatments, i think that planning had talked to them as you do with other houses

on the street. it might be that it is a distribution of the glazing. it seems to me that it is kind of intruding on the privacy a little bit and we certainly could have windows or a bit more keeping with the moldings. the setback issue is a borderline. is it really set back in the other areas? i am not quite sure about that. i would certainly be supportive of taking d.r. if we improved -- approved the demolition, a significant redesign. commissioner moore: i want to step back a little bit and talked to mr. paul. there is a missing link. how the building is not code

compliant because it misses a sound in this report that tells us in this building has outlived its useful life. we don't have that. we're having in noncompliant building. we're going up against what we have spent a lot of time on last year. that is the strategy that gives very specific instructions to us unless there are really clear reasons to protect the housing stock. having saidt hat, -- that, i personally do not feel we'd engage much in appreciating or not appreciating the buildings that have been designed. the analysis and the drawings are very thoughtful.

they are all responding to the most subtle elements. that is primarily the scale. i can see a contemporary building, but it looks quite different from what is in front of us. the basic premise, i am not even sure what we are talking about. commissioner miguel: i also have a problem with hot demolishing the livable building. this is not a building that has to come down. i have been in it. it has an odd floor plan. the main bedroom is the attic area. it is not uncommon. i actually have that.

however, the building being proposed is basically one unit, an accessory unit. you are replacing one for one. if what was proposed here was a true two-unit building, i might think of this differently. but i can see no reason for the demolition. president olague: i think this is an example of why certain commissioners are not willing to give dr's up. this is a sort of project that would have been allowed if the dr process wasn't in place. it is unfortunate over the years the other neighborhoods we

have seen folks decide to invest in homes that are perfectly sound that would be appropriate for many families where many families have lived and raised their children. i think it is unfortunate that people choose to buy a sound home with the intention of demolishing it. i don't support the demolition in this case. i am also very familiar with the valley and i don't think that this design is really compatible with the existing neighborhood at all. i think it is a nice design, someone mentioned a different neighborhood but not here. i have been very cautious, even about historic preservation ordinances. i can see, when we looka at

projects like this, why certain preservationists are pulling their harir out. people decide to move into a neighborhood based on the character and based on these types of projects, it is removing character from the neighborhood. i don't support the demolition. i don't support this project. until we see if the movement along these types of projects, i support the commission's continuing to hear discretionary reviews. commissioner moore: i have not heard any convincing story about why this building needs to be read demolished -- needs to

be demolished or redesigned. and we have the benefit of seeing the building. it is a pretty consistent story, particularly for many of us. and so, the story does not quite at the -- add up. the unit almost compares to the rest of the house. it doesn't convince me as an argument. my motion is to deny the project. >> second. >> i just wanted to clarify a couple of these issues. there is not a report required.

there is not a requirement in this kind of situation. the second thing just to clarify, our proposed package would bring all new construction to you. that was the policy that we proposed a long time ago. >> the motion on the floor is for both demolition and reconstruction, to take the discretionary review and disapprove. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. [applause] president olague: we are going to take a ten minute break. i apologize to the folks that have been waiting for treasure

island. but we need a break.