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 you, commissioners. this is the existing building. 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