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 is almost a given. 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 also concerns to a lack of parking at the project. 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 descbed 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