according to historic maps in the department of public records, the cottage of the rear of the property was constructed either shortly before or after the 1906 earthquake. the cottage and underwent a series of the exterior renovations, which included new windows, possibly a new stair entrance. whereas a side building was renovated to victorian style, the existing cottage contained classic elements. as explained in the evaluation dated september 29, 2008, in order to qualify as an historic

resource, the building must not only be shown to be significant to the california register, but it also must retain integrity. with an altered front facades and the inability to meet any of the criteria of the california register, 134 ord street is not an historic resources. there is no information to indicate it has any assisted asian -- has any association with an event. there's nothing to suggest it has had any importance to our local, regional, or national past. it does not have the characteristics of a type, period, or kind of construction or represents the work of a master. and there is nothing at 134 ord street that possesses

archaeological significance. again, the building must be one of these four criteria to be protected under the law. staff made a review and determined that the address is not meet this criteria, and therefore it is not an historical resources. ironman -- i understand that they believe the front garden of the subject property, as well as the other neighboring buildings at the front and back, are an unusual circumstance. it may be the case that's 134 ord street is an older structure, but these two characteristics are simply not enough to call the subject building and historic resource.

the development of the cottages at the rear is quite common in this neighborhood and other neighborhoods throughout the city. is typical for owners to build a small cottage at the rear of their property. and therefore, development of cottages at the back is simply not unique or unusual. the third issue the appellant is raising is the determination of the historic district and the proposed project will have a negative impact on historic resources. while the district may agreed with the appellant that there are historic resources in the neighborhood, the department does not agree that the proposed project will be a negative impact to those resources. there is no substantial credible evidence provided by the appellant to contend that 134

ord street is a contributor to the district or the project will have an adverse impact. 140 ord street is the flat front italianate. it was noted as a well- preserved italianate building of fine details and of former garden. of the proposed project will be 25 feet from the front property line and will not touch the adjacent historic resource.

from an architectural and urban design standpoint, as you can tell from this photograph -- the flat front lacks continuity in architectural style. these are setbacks to being considered a potential historic district. the department believes there is enough obstruction in these front setbacks -- in offenses, garden structures -- to interrupt that open space to leave one solid foot of green

space that could be defined as significant. as for the impact, the fourth issue of the appellant is raising is the public use that he believes will be impacted -- [bell rings] to summarize, the planning department -- supervisor chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions to planning? supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: would be inappropriate time to ask a question -- supervisor chiu: absolutely. a question to any member of city staff. supervisor wiener: can you speak relating to the change of the

category of a category of exemption from one to three and what impact, if any, that has? >> hello. i am the city attorney. this does not violate state law or the city guidelines -- guidelines. it does not define what kind of categorical exemption is issued as long as it becomes final. the project became final. hear the project approval is not yet final because it is under appeal, and it is appropriate for the department's of appeals -- for the department of appeals to supplement if necessary. he can supplement that record.

it is certainly not improper procedurally under the law to have further documents -- to have further documentation and the process. supervisor wiener: would be inappropriate to change the categorical exemption from one category to another? >> from a procedural perspective, as long as it is the undermining -- underlying determination that the product is exempt, it does not change. supervisor wiener: thank you. supervisor chiu: colleagues, any questions? at this time, let's hear from the real party at interest. >> good afternoon. john is a public health service

employee of the federal government. he has never built a structure. i of heard today -- and i have heard it many times -- that my client is a developer. he certainly is not. one important thing that you heard is very misleading. mr. williams would make you believe that during the planning commission hearing, the staff presented a project that was our renovation of our rear building. no. he presented a project that was a new building. the new building was moved 9 feet further back into the locked, same height, same structure. we're talking about documentation for whether an analysis was done. mr. williams might be right.

but the documentation did not occur until after the planning commission hearing. but that is not a question to go that is a document. documentation can be done up to the time of the permanent. it has not had a fully-issued building permits. what is important is, did the staff of department analyzed before it's too up to present a new building. did they look at resources on this lot in nearby ones? yes. the fact that they did not read- stamp a piece of paper before that meeting is irrelevant. it is also irrelevant legally according to the city attorney. now, there is no dispute here

even from the appellant that nothing on this lot is an historic resource. only secondarily was it allows with the nearby buildings were accepted? -- were affected? the main argument is based on a book written by a socialite many years ago called the blue boat here today." -- "here today." what they did not mention was in the survey of the junior league, which is on the overhead, the junior league says, this block as a whole is not architecturally strong. not only did they identify two

architectural resources on the slot, but it appears that none of the others are important. they did not tell you that. the appellate went to the planning commission and said, build me a structure as far back into the rear as possible. my client wanted it as far forward as possible. the planning commission put it exactly up the middle. the new structure was placed halfway up for my client wanted and halfway with the neighborhood wanted it. neither party was thrilled, but some people call that could compromise. they are now using arcane historical preservation rules and clerical errors to undo this. they want to get back the design the proposed, which is a much larger from lot.

what do they use to do that? they complain that the open space on the lot is historic. is the only way they can preserve the open and rear yard frontage that they really want p.o. so, -- that they really want. so, what do they want from the planning commission? there is a place for that. there is a place for their real issues of light/shadow views and so on. that is the board of appeals. it will only be held up by appeal before you today. now, if you hear from the appellant that the front yard is a special place never to be built on, if this sounds familiar, it is because mr. joseph butler used the same arguments in the case of 1269

lombard a few weeks ago. what he argued was the placement of buildings and office spaces around the front yard of 1269 created a formality and an historic feature of an inch deep front yard of the property. here, in his report does it one more time. id talks about the front yard, even though there is nothing historic in its -- this is a front yard with the driveway and parking spaces and concrete -- but he makes that into an historic feature by saying the front yard has an important spatial relationship compared to the lots and buildings are round it. in the 1269 case and the case before you, he says "the spatial

relationship of and adjacent buildings on other lots next to and around a proposed project front yard open space is to be preserved." he compared that in both of these cases. "the tool in the neighborhood." -- "the jewel in the neighborhood daughters that argument did not work in the -- in the neighborhood daughters that argument did not work any -- in the lombard case. all d four open spaces have nothing particularly of beauty in them or anything in common.

the sum is greater than each part. again, he has not told you the junior league said of the same front yards and the buildings on them that this role of houses is "not architecturally strong." and when he talks about the public perception, he is really talking about if you see the long and deep side of 140, if we say that the standard wood siding, plane sides of historic buildings around town, older buildings, are to be preserved, what we are really saying is, hundreds, if not thousands of small additions to the front

sides of buildings can never be made. if you block any part of this very generic wood siding that you see on this victorian and you see here adjacent at 140. now, the city attorney has rejected this idea that the revision was too late if it comes after the planning commission hearing. he rejected it here before du. about a month ago. many of you will remember. the same arguments. it was issued to late. the city attorney advised the same thing p.o. -- advise the same thing. the other question is whether there has been an error.

the so-called harmless error rule. this says if there is a small clerical error that does not harm anybody, it does not make a decision on environmental review effective. so, let's ask about the harm. [bell rings] did appellants it denied a right to a board of appeals hearing? no. what does the change of category status mean? there are no consequences. and nobody has lost any rights to complain about this project. and of course, as you know, the results of your decision today -- [bell rings] supervisor chiu: thank you.

colleagues, any questions? ok. why don't we hear from members of the public who wish to speak? each member of the public will have up to two minutes. first speaker. >> [unintelligible] supervisor chiu: you can start. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is john mulroney and in the property owner. i am not a developer. i purchased this property in july 2008 to serve as my primary residence with plans to add to the structure of the front of the lots and turn the cottage, where i now live, into a rental unit. what changed over two years ago is the order in which i have decided to undertake these improvements -- new building first, followed by renovation of the cottage.

i have noticed -- the existing small cottage at the rear of the lot has approximately 900 square feet of living space, which due to obstructions is prevented from being used as a grosz -- garage. i parked in the front driveway. prior to the planning commission, i voluntarily made many modifications to my plan. i also supported the but sessions of mediation at the community board. the changes are incorporated included reducing the heights and the -- it is now 13 feet lower at 130 ord. two, and increased the front

setback to provide more front yard in the front lot. the appellants has argued that i should demolish or add-on to the existing building. i chose my approach for several reasons. the cost for free, liberal -- [bell rings] supervisor chiu: thank you. if there are other members of the public to would like to speak, if you could line up in the center aisle. >> thank you. open space is in short supply here in the city. obviously, this project is trying to get around the fact that all those other -- supervisor chiu: i believe you spoke already on behalf of the appellant.

next speaker? >> good evening. i've been in an around san francisco since the 1980's and i'm here to speak on behalf of project sponsor and applicant. the property 126-128 ord is not adjacent. ord is a flat frontal yan cottage beautifully restored and painted and has a formal front garden. it's significant and based on its historical architectural facade with its front garden noted as a feature. several front yards have come into discussion here. they vary in their patterns and styles. there is no formal or intentional relationship between any. there are no physical connections between them. each is separated by the adjoiner that establishes individual character, ownership,

and privacy. two are screened from the street by tall fences and gates. patterns are similar only in respect that each has a paved drive and parking area and which is a primary characteristic of the property per exhibit g. the identified significance of 140 ord is due to its historic architecture, specifically its facade. its identified significance has no relationship to or dependence on its context or setting or on the characteristics of any other property, vistas, or views. the project respects the historic front of 140 ord street, including its yard. the alteration of 136 ord will not materially impair the identified historic significance of 140 ord. therefore there is no potential adverse change. in fact, the proposed project repeats a pattern of development long since evident at 138 to 140 ord, which is that of an original small cottage at the rear with a subsequent edition of a primary residence to the front. thank you.

president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, speakers. my name is richard carrington. i live at 154 ord, and i've lived there for about 20 years. and i'm in favor of this project because it will greatly enhance the block that i live on. as you walk up the street, you don't see what i've heard described, which almost sounds like you're describing the gardens of versailles. what next to me is bill's house, which does have a beautiful garden and a big fence in front. next to that is the house you've heard is historic, and it's a beautiful house. i think it's the best on the block. and next to that, of course, is the lot we're talking about, which has -- i've always hate. it drags weight to the back with the long driveway, a scrubby sort of -- you can't really call it a garden area, and a large fence. next to that is a property with a big palm tree. other than that, it has no great

merit. it has a parking space at the front. it has a new structure right behind the parking space, so it's not all in the back of the lot. it has a big space that's occupied by some sort of building, a one-story building right in the middle. and it has a huge fence with a big gnarly vine that looks like it's some alien thing that could grab you from the street. these are not garden blocks. these are not connected in any way. and i favor the construction, and i hope that you will approve the construction of this house proposed. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is john hudson, i live at 420 jersey street. i sold my international design company about five years ago. i've been a member of the national trust for historic preservation for decades. i've helped them campaign to preserve buildings and sites around the country, including

the city of paris here in san francisco. i know something about historic preservation and the laudable instincts towards it. i've also learned something about how those impulses can run amuck. if i paraphrase a renowned san franciscan, eric hover, the long shoreman philosopher, if i may, a zell lot is someone who having lost sight of his goal redoubles his effort. keen eyes in this room may see some of them here today. but i'm here to say this. i have followed this project since the beginning, since the first discussions of it. i support his right to build his house on his property. i support the concept of the proposed house and side plan. i support the design of the house which meets every single requirement of the city. and is a very pleasing and i might say sim pat co addition to that block despite the repeated alterations he has made in the

plan hoping to mollify what are basically his unmollifyable critics. in fact, i applaud the fact that it will contribute more housing and more off street parking to the items that i think are on the city's eternal wish list. finally, i want to talk about the process that's brought us here today. i mentioned this to a friend in new york last night. he laughed. he said, it's surreal. i don't think that's funny. i think it's appalling. i hope that the board today will make a first step towards correcting all of this business by denying this appeal and giving back to mr. maroney what should have been his in the first place. lastly, i'm so glad the fellow before me corrected the impression that maps -- president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi there. my name is jonathan stewart

mills, i'm a resident of 119 ord street. i live on the second floor at 119 ord street, and i have a direct view of all four lots that were mentioned. i came here today to tell you about my neighborhood. and in my neighborhood, if you look at these four lots, you will very quickly determine that they are yards and nothing more or nothing less. they are littered with modern life. the property that is being called a historic resource directly across the street has more paving stones, more concrete, and a gazebo containing a hot tub than it does foliage or plants. i took a walk down ord street this morning to make sure that i was going to speak the truth this afternoon. i did not see a single blooming plant. what's being called a formal garden in front of the historic structure, which is in fact a

fabulous house, is a trimmed hedge, which is maintained approximately twice a year. i love my neighborhood because as you walk down the street, it is a my ladge of architecture. it is the story of real san franciscans. so i ask you to turn the page today and let another chapter be written and let the house be built on ord street. president chiu: next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is brian. i'm a resident of district eight in corona heights, so this encompasses my neighborhood as well. i'm in very strong support of projects such as mr. maroney's at 136 ord street that conform to city's general plan, that enhances the overall of the neighborhood's value, and therefore enhances the value of property in the city. i think that the strong consideration for any project of this nature should not get held up because enhancement of property value certainly