i will keep calling names, courtney, jeff, stephen. i am calling all of these names, but nobody is coming up. whenever order you want is fine. it is two minutes each. somebody needs to talk. >> good evening, members of the commission. on page two of the categorical exemption, staff states that we are within a setting of a potential historic district. when he was tasked with a survey of building, we had a grant from

the foundation and we were limited in the amount of resources that he could tackle. we knew that this would be at california registry. we knew that he could go across the street. there are three aspects that tell part of the story of the robert price house which planning staff acknowledges it is within the settings -- they were modified to include the entire set back of your original house. that is with its magnolia tree. the entry of the neighboring building would be restored or maintained. the cliff, which is evident looking down, would still be present. and the tree would be retained. it is given a root area of 11 by

15. use the entire front yard of the house, which is 15 or 17-feet deep. restricting it to 11 by 15, would it save the tree? i am not sure. it would be important to look at that. could we please have the front setback and a building that is more to scale with its neighbors? a lot of this project is so big and does not back up like its neighbors. they have smaller rear yards. thank you very much. >> i am ahead of the land use

committee. in evaluating this project, we did not look at whether the demolition was legal or illegal, but whether they have clean hands in the demolition of the project. not understanding that guideline, and they look back at it as a if we would support this project. they were against supporting this project for three reasons. due to the fact that this is an established district. we felt that the average height of the buildings from the east and west neighbors would be in line with the district. the fourth unit, this is already an over traffic district. by adding a fourth unit, you would be adding traffic to an already over trafficked residential street.

these houses are poorly configured and they affect the neighbors to the east. there are two different proposals for the penthouses. what we are looking for you from the neighbor's side, if the project does not have clean hands when it comes to its demolition, where are the causes, if there are any. we would greatly appreciate it. >> members of the commission, my name is steven. i am the owner of 1262 at lombard street, which is directly uphill from the current site. obviously, i am here to oppose the project. why do i not save everybody some

time and turn it over to my architectural consultant? >> thank you. my name is jerry. 10 years ago, we were asked to look at the cottage in terms of upgrading. we had a number of structural reports that were done. the thought was that we would go ahead and redo the cottage. we made a submission to the planning commission. at that time, the landmarks board declined to certify this as landmark eligible. we designed a three-unit condominium project. in that design, which allowed him to have a least a light shaft going along beside. what is given now is a very small area where he once had light, air and sunlight coming

in. when they decided that they had to sell the cottage, he talked to the sponsors about his pre requisite. he wanted to end these keep the semblance of light and air. what is being given is a light shaft over here. that stops the sunshine coming in. after a long period of time, he was never contacted by the sponsors until the first time he saw the project. he is here to oppose this. we have this one. we did this a long time ago. it is not about architecture. we left some space over here so that there could be some light coming in. what is being proposed is a

building which completely eliminates what he once had. this goes wall to wall. if you look at the next picture -- >> thank you. they are followed by marvin. >> i thought that you had called jeff. i would like to speak. i am the owner of the property at lombard, which is two doors to the east of the proposed property. michael owners and i purchase property in december, 2002 under the understanding that the neighborhood we were buying property in was a series of 1-3-

unit buildings. i was in front of the commission to change our building. i do not know if you can read. this was the report that was prepared for my case. this shows what lombard street looks like. other than one property, and every other house on that block is one-three units. much like the rest of the neighbors, i propose this project because of the sheer density. the rooftop structure i do not understand. it is a four-unit building. the developer which is to give every people -- every person access to the rooftop. this significantly increases the height of the overall building.

i do not understand why it is that a structure needs to be built such that it would allow all four units within that building access to the rooftop. >> there are no more speaker cards. >> hello, commissioners. i lived four houses up from the proposed development. i was not going to say this. we would not be here on less the cottage was demolished. i spoke to the woman who lives here. her name is michelle. she had said, and she states in writing as part of the record, prior to the cottage being demolished, we had a severe letdown that lasted several

days. upon looking, i sought that this was rushing out to the cottage on lombard. there were holes in the roof. i would like to make this part of the record. that is why the cottage is not there now. if there were holes in the roof, i wonder if he put them there when he sold them. i wonder what the developer did or did not do to this cottage. he got pneumonia and the pneumonia it was not treated. prior to the cottage been demolished, i saw holes in the roof. water was poll -- pouring down the stairs and into the lot. there was an emergency order demolishing the cottage. now we are talking about a structure that nobody is looking at from the north to the south with these roof decks and dr.

mays. -- dr. knees. i do not know if he popped the champagne when this was demolished. every building on our street is terraced slightly upwards as we go west. this one is slightly higher. this is what it looks like. with that, i think he will get a clear understanding. >> thank you. over here, sir. >> i am and owner of the property at lombard street. we have been living there for 22, 23 years. it is uniform as far as the roof

line. i guess the sponsor mentioned that there are more units. there are apartment buildings down below us. now, when i talk about the building, we are not talking about remodeling. we had a stairway to the roof. the penthouse is up 40 feet. it comes to about 50 feet at the penthouse. i do not understand that. i think that is too big. i have a lot that is 30 feet by 100.

i disagree with the builders saying that they are consistent. my building, i have less than 4000 square feet of space. they have four units. it is part of character. -- out of character. i feel that the structure is intrusive to the neighborhood. >> are apologize for not submitting edit card. my name is bill. the e-mail that was read earlier is from one of my tenants. i have a couple of single women that live in my building. they were confused about my support or lack of support for this project.

i am probably the building that is most impacted by it it. i just wanted to submit these sketches that i had actually sent after meeting a couple of times with mr. morris and the commissioner at the site. they asked me to go and support the project. i said that there were concessions that they had made. if you look at the rendering on the back, it will show that the building was pushed over a bit for my property, which actually has a beneficial effect to my building. this was a letter i sent in 2009 to david. i bought this in 1997. when mike contractor came to the commission, i remodel the upper unit and kept the integrity of the building in place.

i was able to put up a pretty cool building. it was moved to a location originally built in the 1930's. i have had a couple of meetings 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