have met with ariel ford to review our project as proposed and try to reach some common ground to address her concerns and still maintain the integrity of our family's plan to build two equal family-sized units. listening to the commissioners' suggestion to reduce the rear massing, we have done that by 14 inches. we have pulled in the first and second floor by 12 inches, the third floor by 2'6" and the fourth floor by 3'6". to dress softening the rear of the building, we have clipped off north side corners on the second, third, and fourth floors. we have always been sensitive to our neighbors on 20th street based on modifications based on feedback and after submitting to further address concerns about the perception of the building and access to light and air. we provided a comprehensive shade study that concluded the shading would be marginally different than the existing home. we are 37 feet away from the ford's home providing ample opportunity for light and air. during a recent meeting, she stated one of her main concerns is what she would see when she looked out her kitchen doors. we believe the fords have been misinformed about the scale of our project generating fears it will loom over us like an enormous fortress. it is unfortunate that despite all of the clarifications we have provided and the discussions we have engaged them, in they continue to hold fast to these misrepresentations. for example, our proposed building height will be nine feet taller than the existing roofline, not 19 feet. we have been open to honest discussion, compromise and have made concessions and have yet to see any in return or any acknowledge of the changes we have made. instead we are expected to build our homes dictated by and limited to d.r. applicants. thank you. president olague: thank you. emily scott, liz notware. >> good evening, commissioners. i am emily scott and i am myra's partner. i will be living in the upper unit when the project is complete. i wanted to address a few comments made at the commission at the last hearing. it was pointed out that we had friends and family to speak on our behalf, but no neighbors. we should point out to the commission that we actually have 11 letters of support from our neighbors. you should have this map on paying 3 of your pocket. we have the support, either written or verb alfrom all of the neighbors across the street, the owner of the apartment building adjacent to us, the neighbors directly behind us and their adjacent neighbor. at the last meeting. mr. howser had four neighbors spoke on his behalf. they didn't speak against the projects as much as his alternative plans. they never talked about concerns despite the multiple outreach opportunities they provided. if they had, with would be happy to explain the plans, the subterranean living space, acceptable to mr. howser and his wife was not acceptable to us. we have met with two of the homeowners who spoke in support of mr. howser's plan at the last hearing. they acknowledged that the updated design is much more in keep with the neighborhood context. we have exchanged email with another neighbor to provide accurate information light on h from our project is minimal and explain the modifications we have already made to be sensitive to the neighbors on 20th street. we would like to remind the commission that the planning staff has evaluated the d.r.'s and find they do not meet the criteria for exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. we recognized this from the beginning, but still made generous concessions to both parties. we understand this process requires compromise and we have done that, but neither of the d.r. requesters is willing to accept any compromises. thank you for your time. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is elaina. i'm clare's partner and will be living at 309 eureka street. i would like to speak to you to try to clarify some of the milk characterizations. his misleading presentation is to swayed our project. we want you have to the correct information on these points. the d.r. applicant says it is historic. it is not and the staff concurs. he has an alternative plan that destroys the building. the square footage comparison of mr. howser's alternative plans were overexaggerated by 728 square feet for the third level and 834 square feet for the fourth level. the height of our existing building is 26 feet, not 23 feet. the height of mr. howser's existing building is 36 feet, not 31 feet. the new building height at 64 feet from eureka street will be 30 feet tall, not 40 feet tall. he references a nonexistent 40-foot high wall along our shared property line to the south. it was important for us to defend our project against these inaccuracies. thank you very much for your time. >> good evening, commigsers, i'm liz, an attorney apparent and i own a home a couple of blocks from the owners who i have known for 15 years. i'm here to read a brief statement from a neighbor across the street. her statement reads, "i live across the street at 328 eureka street. my family met myra and clare. they have always been thoughtful neighbors. they endured without complaint living next door to a loud disruptive and lengthy construction project when 313 eureka was renovated by the owner. throughout the construction process, they remained cheerful and supportive neighbors even when the owner erected support beams on their property without permission and when construction impacted the fence in their yard. we have attended the neighborhood meetings they held last year and spoke with them directly with the project. they are respectful to open discussion and feedback. they have a great personal time and expense made many changes to the original plans for the sole purpose to try to satisfy the two d.r. applicants and have kept us included and informed throughout the process. i have received hard copies of all changes and have received verbal and written updates throughout the process. this has been a very long and challenging experience for their family. i respect their ongoing willingness to work with their neighbors. they have bent over backwards in the spirit of true compromise. we own our home. our daughters hasn't harvey nick civil rights academy and we plan to be here for a while because of these neighbors. i fully support the project at 311-309 eureka street. the updated look of the house will improve home values for the rest of us. everyone in this neighborhood will benefit from the project when done. sincerely, marlies warren. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> go ahead and start talking. it will show up. >> good evening, commissioners. i am jane, an architect. i have been practicing in san francisco and living here for the past 25 years. i have considerable experience working with clients in residential projects in the neighborhoods and my home is nearby in liberty heights. i would like to actually look at a couple of the drawings that were presented by the southerly most neighbor and i field polarly opposite as it is designed by the family. i feel that it's actually being representatively appropriate in scale and massing in terms of stepping back. they again have gone through considerable compromises in working with the neighbors as many of the family members have pointed out this evening. i also feel that the massing at the eureka side, if you notice, is actually very much in tune with what's happening with the immediate neighbors. i feel that the design as presented by the southerly most neighbor is actually out of scale. the elements, while maybe they fit in with the surrounding scale of the buildings and other parts of the neighborhood work, in this context they actually look small and miniaturish and almost "dollhouse" like. i would go back to the design as its presented and again with as much as the family has gone to reduce the square footage, the massing, the setbacks and given the fact that they cannot set the building any lower because of the landmark tree, i feel that you should support this project and please do not take the d.r. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional? >> good evening, i also spoke at the may 19th meeting. i'm here in support of the project as it's been presented. two issues that i have with the designer view. i have been working with this family on costs and also the income and realizing the design that has been presented by mr. howser creates an enormous amount of additional costs to the family. not to mention the fact that there is a good chance that it does kill that heritage tree. any excavation on the property will effect the root system of that tree. in addition, the owner is on a fixed income. these additional costs to him and to his family may not allow him to even build the project. it's a legacy house. it's not a development to be sold. it's not a spec development. it's there for the family and hopefully for generations to come. in addition, they have approximately reduced the project already in trying to make several, several compromises over the few years. 25%, approximately 800 square25. with the recent information i have, they have almost taken of $500,000 hit. they have given up that value, to satisfy the neighbor. i hope that you will reject this, -- >> and are there any additional speakers? the request is each get a couple of minutes for a bottle. >> what you are being told is wrong, because nobody has ever produced the existing grades on the property. i went to his property and i measured that tree. the base of that tree is 7 -- is 4.5 feet below. there is a crawl space under the house. they are taking advantage of this and there is no excavation required. this will have the same crawlspace. i do not see any issue here with history. secondly, any building that takes my house to remodel is misguided. this was an ugly house, the subject of a second story addition, completely at odds with the victorian base. and the top of my roof, -- this is where the flat roof takes off. this is not demonstrated in the elevations. and their notion of a collaboration is to go off in the corner to design their building and come to the neighbors to lobby them for support. there is no meaningful discussion and they avoided me like the plague, because i work with them on the design basis and come up with something alternative. this was refused. thank you. >> i would only like to speak to the jury in the backyard of the neighbor to the west. that does not extend in to our yard at all. there may be some compromise around the split level below that with our home. >> the project sponsor has two minutes. >> i just wanted to say a couple of things in regard to the property, we did a study on the first original proposed plan and this show the that there was not significant blockage of sunlight. i would say that the new plan is actually going to improve this situation. i did go through the six hours of mediation, and this is a case where, similar to democrats and republicans, one will not budge at all. i understand that the applicants are wanting to protect their rights, but ultimately, we have to know that they also have rights to their property. they have the right to build a building that will fit in the neighborhood. and they can build a building in the way that they see fit. we should put aside the proposal of a neighbor because this is not what they want to build. this is a very appropriate building. the two compartments are not very large in relationship -- in relation to what they could be. this is not supposed to the architectural masterpiece. they want to do something that will fit in. we cannot shrink the building any shorter, and given the concerns about these efforts, we would be facing george king. we have been squeezed on all three sides, and cannot go much further. they have done their best efforts given the circumstances with the inability to come with any compromise. >> the public hearing is closed. >> i think the project sponsors have responded to a lot of what we do. i agree with the requested that the majority of the houses are more victorian style, but this is much more can dextral that was, and it does blend in nicely with his house, which is the craftsman style. it looks like this belongs on the street. you have been that -- been doing a nice job of doing this. the height has been reduced by 14 inches overall. 12 inches on the first floor, moving forward with 2.6, 3.6 on the third. well we have here is the san francisco dilemma. it is tough to watch -- work with 25 feet. and the residences within this footprint. 1930 and 1750 looks fairly reasonable. with the project sponsor is saying, is that by changing the design of the roof, rather than having a flat roof after you get past the interior portion of the roof, i think what this does is it limits the amount of head room that you normally have as you move lateral -- laterally in these rooms. i don't know if that is proper of us task, because you would minimize the effective space by changing the roofline and i am not certain how much that you would gain. maybe i can ask the architect about that. i am certain that you looked at this possibility during the alternates that were proposed on the roof design to create this as you move back. >> we actually discussed placing this on top so this would be consistent, but this would raise the heights of the building and so we did not think that, to go with the incline. this would reduce the square footage to almost make it impossible to use. >> i understand what you are dealing with and other than the almost negligible part at the very end, which will add to the cost and not replace much -- i don't see how anything significant would make the usable space -- much less the narrow direction. i don't really see too much else that you'll be able to do on this. comissioner moore: with such a big difference with the common ground, it is almost impossible for me to meaningfully respond to this challenge. we not have any rules facing -- with the windows facing the property. you have come to a personal agreement, and a mutual understanding of these issues that jointly affect you. i see that you are going to do the design, but i am not certain how you would feel if your neighbor was wanting to design your house. this was affected by all the rules in the code, but is almost impossible not to empathize with you. i like your house. and he continuously said that the feet are not use when you look at other cities. 25 feet is allowed to be narrowed with the house. it is almost impossible to continue to force the joining neighbor to do more and more. on the front they have reasonably responded, and we are not the architectural design board. we are looking at the general performance and the rules. i think the building is a little bit lethargic, and we have some of the possibilities of notching and shaping. and not have any tools here, or scales away. i cannot release support that you are designing other people's houses, with your perception of what you would like to see as a complement. i will let the other commissioners, and because i am it all out -- at my wit's end. >> so am i.. this has been a complete waste of my time. we have had other cases where things turned out amicably, and other cases that have been equally as bad in my opinion, where there is hardly any compromise. it's times like this that i wish we did not have dr. but anyway, this is an improvement over what we had last time. i think. i would just make a motion not to take this and to approve the project. commissioner antonini: we did have a more conceptual design and this helped the request and we still have the space. i think we have a second. we have three separate actions, to approve the demolition, and we have to approve the replacement projects on public action, and this would be the revised project, which is being presented today, and a separate action. >> this would be approving the demolition and the project has devised. >> i was i project. ok. >> commissioner miguel: this commission tries to put people together and sometimes this works and sometimes this does not. in my mind, the main issue is the protection of property line windows that are not protected under the code. and this is my opinion, as did it -- the design questions although i did not object last time, to the more contemporary design, there is no question the present design does fit in more with the neighborhood, and it works, without question. i have no objection to the motion. >> commissioner? >> commissioner moore: 4 house that is understated, he did a nice job. and here are a couple of people who cannot talk to each other, which leaves me in a trap. whenever i do, i am not doing what i feel that i would like to do. i am caught in the middle. >> on the motion to approve the project as proposed, commissioner anthony? -- antonini? >> aye. >> moore? >> no. >> it passes 4-1, commissioners. it places you on your final regular-calendared item. item 20, case 200.618 e. the adams street project. public hearing on the draft environmental impact report. >> good evening. i am in the planning department's staff. this is the henry adams street project. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public co+ completion of the draft e.i.r. there is no approval action requested at this time. the project consists of a couple of sites and the subject property at 801 brannan and 1 henry adams street, founded by division, alameda, in the city square neighborhood. this would include the demolition of the three existing commercial and industrial buildings at henry adams. this would include new construction of some -- three mixed use residential buildings as well as two mixed use of buildings. there be 824 dwelling units, with 54,594 square feet of retail. all the buildings would be 68 feet tall and are within the urban mixed use district. this will be dedicated to the city in partial fulfillment of the affordable housing requirement, with 100 of the unit's proposed that would be affordable housing that would be constructed under the mayor's office of housing. this would vary the developments on the site, and it would not include land dedication. the planning department prepared for this project because of the effects on the environment. the draft found that the proposed projects would have a significant and unavoidable impact with transportation and circulation as well as their quality. this would result in a cumulatively considerable constitute -- contribution to the land supply in the eastern neighborhood e.i.r. with the building permit review, the staff submitted the proposed projects to the
mass of layers down and then our proposals are on the middle right, lower, there is an actual parity between the sponsor's keep and our scheme where in their proposal, it actually steps up where as the contours of the block step downward. and so we're encouraging you to take a very close look at our proposal and we feel like it's an appropriate limitation to the massing of the project and we ought to be able to work within those massing limits. thank you. president olague: thank you. i'm going to read a few cards here of people who are in support of the d.r. requester. jane segal, uta rikart, joe quigley, tony kim. >> excuse me, there are two d.r. requesters, i think we both get -- president olague: of course. the second d.r. requester gets five minutes. that's my fault. sorry about that. >> could you put the slide back up on the screen? >> just go ahead and start talking. >> thank you for your time today. i'm here to represent myself, my husband, and our three young children. we're the homeowners at 4437 20th street. we have filed a d.r. in response to this project. our family lives directly downslope about a nine-foot drop from 309 eureka. here is a picture of the back of our house. these are the windows that receive all of the sunlight for our house. upstairs is our bedroom and bathroom and down stairs is our kitchen and great room. these are the -- well, these are the rooms where we spend the bulk of our time as a family. let me go to the next slide here. so here is the current house as seen from our kitchen. the upslope about nine feet from us and their current structure shades our house and yard partially every day. you can see even at their current two stories and height of 19 feet, they do appear to tower over us, mostly because they are upslope. so they're asking to add an additional two stories to their home, changing their height from the current 19 feet to 35 feet. this would significantly impact both the amount of light we get into our home every day and any ability to see anything beyond the massing of their house when we look out the primary windows of our home or stand in our yard. so as the building stands today shown in gray, our sun disappears behind their home at between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., depending on the time of year. the shade study that they have conducted concluded this. by adding the additional 16 feet to their building as shown on the upper right, we will be losing the sun much earlier in the day during the summer months and in the winter stand to not get any at all. there has been an argument put forth that since some of our sunlight that comes into our home is dapled by neighbors' trees, the additional height of their new house won't actually affect the light into our home. well, we take great issue with this because while some of the sunlight that illuminates our home is dapled by our neighbors' trees, dapled or not, this is sunlight into our home. the proposal will completely block our light. they're almost doubling the height of their current structure. so the bottom two drawings exhibit ideas put forth in plans by george howser referred to as the neighbors' design. i am in support as the neighbors' design, it takes the bottom level of the house 4 1/2 feet down to grade. thereby decreation the overall height of the building and preserving some of the sunlight into our home and small yard. george came up with two different ideas here. one is three stories. one is four stories. they exhibit a different use of space to achieve comparable square footage to the plan. they have explained to us that they do not want to do this because they do not want to incur costs associated with excavation and they don't want to impede the natural light coming into their home, but we hope that the commission can take all of that into consideration as you make your decision. president olague: i'll start calling up those who support the d.r. requesters. jane segal, uta reich afternoon t, joe quickly followed by tony kim. two men's. -- minutes. i'm not sure if the mic is picking you up. >> they switched over. president olague: ok. and the time will be limited to two minutes. >> you want me to start over? >> president olague: yeah, please. >> i'm jane segal. first i thanked you but i'll skip that. i own and live at 315 eureka street, just two properties to the south of 309, 311. i attended the may 19, 2011, hearing here. since then, i have been tracking the design revisions that are being proposed. as we were contacted, we had a meeting last week. while i really appreciate that the project sponsors made an effort to create a facade design change, i'm referring to the front on eureka street that's more consistent with the architectural look of our block, i still do have some concerns. first, there has not been a successful collaboration with the neighbors, the fords and the howsers on the revision of the design. my understanding from the hearing, the last hearing is that the commissioners requested a collaborative revision. the neighbors processed and work together. i agree with that recommendation. i think that the ability to change the revision based on neighbors' input is crucial, so i support a more open process and more compromise. my primary concern is that the design is still too tall and too large in the rear, in the back, not to what is on eureka street. where it shadows the fords and other properties. if you look at the design from eureka street obliquey from eureka street or from the vantage point of the northern neighbor rear yards, that's what ariel ford just showed us or from the mid block open space which is where i fit in, the reality is that the design has not changed all that much, i don't think, since may 19, that back part. it's still a series that looks to me like a series of long -- no! president olague: thank you very much. >> good ann, commissioners, my name is uta reichart. i will read clarify moon's letter who can't be here. she owns just north of the eureka project. they are rear yards adjoined. i lived in my property for many years and intend to return there. i'm greatly impacted by the design for 309 eureka street. i do want to note that i'm appreciated of their approach. i am requesting that you reduce its height and overall size. at the may 19, 2011, planning commission meeting, the commission continued the 309 eureka hearing and recommended that the project sponsor work with the d.r. requesters to revise the project. the commission suggested that they examine ways to minimize impact on the ford's property and to make the building more consistent and appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood by considering the roofline and the treatment of the bay window. we ask that the building be brought down 4 1/2 feet to grade. i am in support of these goals and i am especially concerned about lowering the height and reducing the impact on the fords property and my property, both of which will be shadowed by this new building. i have seen the sponsor's july 14, 2011 design and it does not address the commission's may 19 comments. the height has only been reduced a foot. the rare -- rear massing has been slightly reduced and is too large with relation to the north end properties. they reduced impact on the other properties by using transparent guard rails instead of opaque. the design does not resonate with the neighborhood. president olague: thank you. >> hello, my name is joe quickly and i'm here for my wife. we live at 313 eureka in the top, there is an apartment on the top that is about a floor and a half. i also spoke at the last meeting in may and i had a chance to look at some, the drawings we just saw here today and my and my wife's concern is that we can't really speak to the architectural integrity of the neighborhood, but we can tell you that it will have a massive impact on the amount of light that comes into our apartment. our kitchen window would be completely blocked and that's the main source of light into the kitchen. the new designs from what i have seen just there, it looks like the new designs will also block the main source of light into our bedroom, which is above the kitchen and the designs also show that as they did at the early meeting that all of our light into our living room and our dining room will be blocked. so i haven't seen anything in the new drawings to indicate that they have addressed any of the concerns about access to light. so i would hope that you would approve a project that would be more consistent with some of the drawings that the neighbors, the so-called neighbors design has shown that would allow access to a little more like for our windows. thank you very much. president olague: thank you. sahid followed by mary. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm a journalist. i write about design. i also write books about design and i have seen this project as you know the last time. i also know the project architect quite well. i have written about his work and i would like to read a few points. at the last hearing for this project, i put forward the proptation that the generic design was an odd response to the neighborhood, to this gabled port could domered character. they struck me as having produce aid design that was too dimensional, too large and lacking scale and definition. i know the work as their architect as i said earlier and was was hopeful that he would bring you a design that had more of the qualities that had actually won him awards all over the city and in this case, qualities of the neighboring cottages. i have surveyed the changes they have made and i have to say that i'm also disappointed. they seem to have cut and paste here and there and actually 14 inches, they may have well have taken one inch away from the tough. they seem to have cut and done a slope proof, but not really changed the character of the design. it seems a bit lifeless, a little intent on a very large mass which should be reduced, especially because they have a very special site. they have a very large north face, which could actually be used to receive those views and i urge you to give the added proposals better time and your thought and review. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm mary and i live in san francisco. i'm a friend of george and uta's. i spent a lot of time in their home on eureka street. over the years, i have listens to the saga of the design proposals and i want to offer my views as an architect and real estate agent with a good deal of experience in san francisco residential design. one thing i have learned over the years about san francisco real estate is that charm sells. it doesn't surprise me that they would want to build a new building on this block of eureka street. it's a great block and a great neighborhood. the reason for this is largely attributable to the existing physical attributes of the block. it's the modest scale and the finally textured quality of the buildings on this block and the history that gives the block its appeal and value. look at another way, if the block consisted of building and sizes that they are suggesting, this would be less appealing and the building less valuable. if just one other property on this block were to be the subject of a demolition proposed and the construction of something similar to that proposed, i suspect there would be an enormous outcry. a good design solution can be found for this site. the one proposed here is not. even with their limited resources, the neighbors have come up with something that is credible. it needs attention to the details, but it shows what can be done with a fresh aye and a willingness to reject preconceptions and to try on some new ideas. a desire to get out of the rut of one's own thinking, i know from having sat through many of these hearings that your job can be very trying and tedious, but i urge you not to give up. something better can be achieved here, something better for the owners and for their neighbors. it takes a little more flexibility and a little more effort. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is tony kim. i live a couple blocks away on 4558 19th street. the reason i'm here, i am undergoing a major renovation myself in the 11th month of my renovation. it's been relatively smooth. i have one story to tell. i have had all the permits, construction, and about halfway through the project after my structure started going you, one of the neighbors two doors down saw i had a deck on my top floor extending off my bedroom and they saw the steel and thought that it was a bit large. i decided to meet with them and in the spirit of relationships with the neighbors, i agreed within 48 hours to cut back my deck. i think it was a reasonable request and i adjusted, modified my design plans with my architect and we resolved the situation right there and then without having to come to you guys. so i'm familiar with the issues here between the sponsors and the d.r. requesters. in this case, i'm wondering why a similar process isn't taking place just having communications. it seems reasonable to address some of the issues by the neighbors and i guess it just seems to me that a solution can be worked out that's much more reasonable than what was initially proposed by the owners architect. i just urge them to consider a approach that is much more collaborative. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional comment in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon or good evening, i guess. it's almost evening. commissioners, i am the architect. so i would like to have the overhead show the image of the proposed new design now. i think that's the slides that were left on the computer, sorry. this is for the overhead. great, ok. so i just want to kind of it's rate what was announced or what was at the last hearing and we were consider to reduce the mass of the proposed structure for the north neighbor, reconfigure the building to make it more con textual generally and to try to work with the neighbors. i as an architect have been working with them as a consultant to help them with their design. as you know, they're a family of builders and they first approached me with their design and i have massaged it and after the last hearing, i promised that i would massage this building even further to work with it. we do have a lot of constraints on this building. i don't agree with the people who had just spoken that our revisions are unsubstantial. yes, the building was lowered 14 inches, but it also was reduced in the back and i'll show you the side of the building here so we can take a look at the reductions that have happened. so the building was pushed back completely all one foot and then most importantly on the third and fourth floors, the fourth floor was reduced another 3'6". the other was reduced 2-6. the corners of the building were clipped to reduce further the mass to the north neighborhood. overall, the entire project since this session has been reduced by 25% in square footage. since when it was submitted to the building department or for the planning review, we have removed about 703 square feet from the building project. the lower flat is currently 1,900 square feet, 1,950 square feet and the upper unit is 1,750 square feet. they are not incredibly large units. lowering the building further is not an option due to the need to project the adjacent large monterey cypress that was one of the d.r. requesters main concern, george king. he lifted that d.r. with the agreement that the building would not be lowered any further. if the building goes down any lower, it would be potentially damaging the tree says the arborist. i always wanted to say that the building not only steps back in the back, but it also steps on the side and that was always part of the original design. so from the fourth property, it is stepping back a majority of the building, stepping back three feet and the fourth floor is stepping back five feet from the property line. we are very restricted on this site because of planning assignments that set it back 15 feet from the front and a requirement to set it back on the south side three feet to reflect the setback on the george howsers side. we are restricted. regarding the architectural context, we have added the roof. that results in a building that is much more context really here. i don't agree this is a flimsy gesture. it helps in the streetscape and it does make the building fit in and it does disguise the fourth floor. an alternative could be a dormer window up there, but i know that we were trying to follow the planning guidelines which was to keep the main facade of the fourth floor back 15 feet. mind you, philosophically, this building isn't supposed to be a architectural masterpiece. it is designed to be a background building. have i approached it that way. they want a simple building. they want a building that they can live in. it's not supposed to be some dramatic fantastic glass box. they are trying to do the municipal possible which they can actually afford to build and live in they don't want to sell this property as a developer would. and ultimately, we do respect the right for the d.r. applicants to file their d.r.'s, but it's clear they have not been able to come to any agreement. we understand that the building is going to change their environment, but we also know that what we needed to actually focus on is not what they're proposing, but the merits of this project, does it fit in? does it make sense? there has been substantial compromises in this process and, therefore, i ask you not to take d.r. thank you. president olague: thank you. myra, patrick, gabriel, clare. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is nrra and i live at 311 eureka street. i plan to move back in when the project is complete. at the last hearing, it was suggested that we continue to work with our neighbors to try to arrive at a compromise. i realize we could have done a better job explaining to you how much we have already worked with our neighbors because it might not have been obvious. i have to say, i do take issue with the suggestions from the d.r. requesters that we haven't done enough already. so our packets include a timeline of meetings that we had beginning in december of 2008 when we invited our neighbors over to look out our designs before we submitted them. we made modifications to the plans based on feedback from the neighbors as a result of that meeting. we then made modifications to the plan during the residential design review process executing on each of the suggestions the design team made. the plans were approved last june and the d.r. filing date was a year ago on july 9 of 2010. in the 13 months since then, we have had hours of sitdown conversations and meetings to review plans and solicit input. we also had over 150 email exchanges specific to this project with the d.r. requesters. through this collaboration, we were able to reach a compromise such that, mr. king, that he removed his v.r. the design that we presented on may 19 included 311 square feet in reductions from the approved plan to accommodate our neighbors' concerns, but they still rejected our proposal. since late 2008, we have been in communication with mr. howser about the project. we made numerous requests on how they could be altered to address his concerns. we attended six hours of mediation to get a compromise. in spite of getting input on what we could change, nothing was acceptable to him. anything close to his property lines or living room window was a nonstarter. following the may 19 meeting, we have gone back to meet with the neighbors and made even more reductions, but despite our concessions they weren't interested in compromise. president olague: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. it's nice to see you again. my name is patrick and i'm the sponsor's son. our family has been working on this project with planning staff and the neighbors since about 2007. i would like to thank you for your comments last time that helped us with some direction on where we should go given the fact that the design wasn't too well accepted. commissioners moore, sugaya, and antonini commented directly on the aesthetic. they thought that it didn't fit the neighborhood very well and that we need to address what it looked like. this is the result that we came up with. we now feel that it is sympathetic to the block and it is no longer loud or obnoxiously different. the new roof that is actually at the front actually serves a purpose. it's not a false roof with no intent. since we have shrunk our floor space, we actually had to move utilities and furnace into that space at the front of the house. that was due to the effort of trying to pull back the third and the fourth floors. we had to put it somewhere. i did -- commissioner sugaya was talking quite a bit about an effort to lower the building. i consulted with the structural engineer and licensed arborist, showed him our problem, the monterey sigh press being the issue and both reports in your packet, both recommend we do not excavate. we were able to lower the building which i think is significant, 14 inches down. we took our date from the center of the property line, moved to the south and able to gain at least a little bit more. everything we tried was in an effort for the d.r. we do feel that mr. howser's d.r. is directed mostly at trying to preserve his property line windows. we think that that is his main concern, not some of the other concerns that he has stated before. in every design he has proposed shows him trying to protect those windows. thank you very much. i appreciate your time. >> sorry, commissioners, i thought i would make it, been sitting too long. hello, commissioners, my name is gabriel. i bought 309-311 eureka street in 1964 to start my family. i would like to explain why the d.r. requesters' proposal are not acceptable plans to my families. the howsers's plans are obviously designed to protect his views. the top reasons why they won't work. the plans eliminate along the 20th street property on the north side. this design will trigger another 311 notification and another d.r. filed by mr. king with a time delay and cost to my project. the plan of large decks that resemble the decks of aircraft carriers and don't conform to the open space as you can see from the rendering there. the roofs both slope towards mr. howser's building at 24 feet. just below his property line is one of those. and 16 feet below his roof. he also has two floors above that height. these two floors are talked about, the windows being
♪ ♪ . >> theman planning commission regular hearing for july 28. please turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. we are on items 19 a, b, and c for 2009.068 3-d, 2009.0685 d and case number 2010.0577 dd at 309 through 311 eureka street. mandatory discretionary reviews and a publicly filed discretionary review. on may 19, 2011. following public testimony, the commission continued the matter until july 28, 2011. the public hearing does remain open. >> good evening president olague, members of the commission. the item before you is a mandatory discretion review as well as a discretionary review application. it's on the east side of eureka street between 21st street. this was before you on may 19, 2011. i want to summarize a little bit about the project. the proposed project is to demolish the two-family home and construct a new one. the lower unit would have three bedrooms, the upper unit will also have three bedrooms. concerned expressed in the publicly filed d.r.'s were impacts to light air and privacy at the rear and then gorge howser who lives to the south of the subject property also brought up issues of compatibility concerns regarding the demolition of the potentially historic structure and impacts to the street to the north. ncerns raised by commissioners at the may 19 hearing varied, but to summarize, there were concerns brought up about the compatibility with the street face as originally proposed. i'm going to put up an image of the building as it was originally proposed. as well, commissioners expressed some concern regarding impacts to light and air specifically to the neighbors to the north on 20th street. at the hearing, three recommendations were made by the commission and this is a generalization, there was quite a bit of discussion at the may 19 hearing. to generalize, the commissioners suggested that the sponsor consider reducing the overall height of the proposed structure. i'll put up an image of the structure as revised. commissioners suggested that the project sponsor consider reducing the height, revising the street elevation including the roof form to make the building more compatible with the surrounding area and then finally, the commission suggested that the project sponsor consider reductions at the rear including rescalp thing at the hearing to lessen impacts to the neighbors primarily to the north. they have considered to revise the project and worked with the architect. the overall height of the building has been reduced by 14 inches. the depth of the proposed new structure has been reduced to each level at the rear. as you can see of the image on the screen, the front elevation including the roof form has been revised after taking a look at the neighborhood for a second time. or a third or fourth time. the department's recommendation remains that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project. that concludes my summary, but i'm here to answer questions. president olague: let's here from the d.r. questioner and we are going to -- the d.r. requester gets five minutes and then all preceding seekers will be limited to two minutes because we have heard this project before. >> yes, good afternoon, commissioners. could i have the slide? president olague: yes. >> george howser. at the last hearing, we left with the hope that we were going to kind of turn the corner with the project sponsor and enter into a more collaborative design phase and i have to tell you that did not happen. the sponsor basically retrenched, they made a few changes, modifications to the project, very minor in scope and basically handed them to us as a kind of take it or leave it proposition. we were very disappointed when we saw that coming. we decided the best use of our time was to developed some alternative schemes. we presented them to the sponsor. we met with them to discuss them. they rejected them. there was very little discussion of the merits of those schemes and about the only comment we got was, well, they were done by you. we are not interested in them. i want to show you a number of slides here, kind of comparing the various schemes, the schemes that they're presenting to you and the schemes that we're proposing as an alternate. this is an elevational slide that shows the scheme that they presented at the last hearing. the orange line is what they're proposing now. they dropped the height a foot at the top portion and they pushed it back a little bit in the back. they added some opaque guard rails which effectively increased the height in the back over each of the decks and added the front roof in the front, but all it does is add additional volume. there is no additional useable space associated with that. this is the scheme we presented last time. the orange line is what we're presenting now. we're proceed posing a roof over the main part of the house as a gesture and we added volume in the rear. this is a view from eureka street. the view you saw earlier is misleading because it doesn't present the oblique view and demonstrate that this roof in the front is really just tacked on and then behind it, there is still this very large layered building, which is the part that we find most objectionable. it's the part that is really causing the shadowing on the northern properties in the mid block open space. you can see it better from here. the project sponsor scheme son the left. the cut away roof in the front with the large mass behind it the orange line is a reference line. our scheme is on the middle right. we actually developed two schemes. it has a hipped roof, a hipped gable, shed dormers on the side and we feel it's much more organic and contiguous with the context surrounding it which is essentially victorian cottages. from the northeast demonstrating the same concepts, the sponsor scheme is in the upper right-hand corner, large layer mass as compared to our proposal in the lower left corner which will admit much more light. you can see with the orange reference line how much larger the sponsor's proposal is in relationship to ourselves. also, you get a very good sense of the forms of the roof here that we're proposing. and then this is a view from the mid block open space looking toward the rear of the property. the sponsor's scheme is on the right, upper left. you can see we put a reference line in you can see the large mass of layers down and then our proposals are on the middle right, lower, there is an actual parity between the sponsor's keep and our scheme where in their proposal, it actually steps up where as the contours of the block step downward. and so we're encouraging you to take a very close look at our proposal and we feel like it's an appropriate limitation to the massing of the project and we ought to be able to work within those massing limits. thank you. president olague: thank you. i'm going to read a few cards here of people who are in support of the d.r. requester. jane segal, uta rikart, joe quigley, tony kim. >> excuse me, there are two d.r. requesters, i think we both get -- president olague: of course. the second d.r. requester gets five minutes. that's my fault. sorry about that. >> could you put the slide back up on the screen? >> just go ahead and start talking. >> thank you for your time today. i'm here to represent myself, my husband, and our three young children. we're the homeowners at 4437 20th street. we have filed a d.r. in response to this project. our family lives directly downslope about a nine-foot drop from 309 eureka. here is a picture of the back of our house. these are the windows that receive all of the sunlight for our house. upstairs is our bedroom and bathroom and down stairs is our kitchen and great room. these are the -- well, these are the rooms where we spend the bulk of our time as a family. let me go to the next slide here. so here is the current house as seen from our kitchen. the upslope about nine feet from us and their current structure shades our house and yard partially every day. you can see even at their current two stories and height of 19 feet, they do appear to tower over us, mostly because they are upslope. so they're asking to add an additional two stories to their home, changing their height from the current 19 feet to 35 feet. this would significantly impact both the amount of light we get into our home every day and any ability to see anything beyond the massing of their house when we look out the primary windows of our home or stand in our yard. so as the building stands today shown in gray, our sun disappears behind their home at between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., depending on the time of year. the shade study that they have conducted concluded this. by adding the additional 16 feet to their building as shown on the upper right, we will be losing the sun much earlier in the day during the summer months and in the winter stand to not get any at all. there has been an argument put forth that since some of our sunlight that comes into our home is dapled by neighbors' trees, the additional height of their new house won't actually affect the light into our home. well, we take great issue with this because while some of the sunlight that illuminates our home is dapled by our neighbors' trees, dapled or not, this is sunlight into our home. the proposal will completely block our light. they're almost doubling the height of their current structure. so the bottom two drawings exhibit ideas put forth in plans by george howser referred to as the neighbors' design. i am in support as the neighbors' design, it takes the bottom level of the house 4 1/2 feet down to grade. thereby decreation the overall height of the building and preserving some of the sunlight into our home and small yard. george came up with two different ideas here. one is three stories. one is four stories. they exhibit a different use of space to achieve comparable square footage to the plan. they have explained to us that they do not want to do this because they do not want to incur costs associated with excavation and they don't want to impede the natural light coming into their home, but we hope that the commission can take all of that into consideration as you make your decision. president olague: i'll start calling up those who support the d.r. requesters. jane segal, uta reich afternoon t, joe quickly followed by tony kim. two men's. -- minutes. i'm not sure if the mic is picking you up. >> they switched over. president olague: ok. and the time will be limited to two minutes. >> you want me to start over? >> president olague: yeah, please. >> i'm jane segal. first i thanked you but i'll skip that. i own and live at 315 eureka street, just two properties to the south of 309, 311. i attended the may 19, 2011, hearing here. since then, i have been tracking the design revisions that are being proposed. as we were contacted, we had a meeting last week. while i really appreciate that the project sponsors made an effort to create a facade design change, i'm referring to the front on eureka street that's more consistent with the architectural look of our block, i still do have some concerns. first, there has not been a successful collaboration with the neighbors, the fords and the howsers on the revision of the design. my understanding from the hearing, the last hearing is that the commissioners requested a collaborative revision. the neighbors processed and work together. i agree with that recommendation. i think that the ability to change the revision based on neighbors' input is crucial, so i support a more open process and more compromise. my primary concern is that the design is still too tall and too large in the rear, in the back, not to what is on eureka street. where it shadows the fords and other properties. if you look at the design from eureka street obliquey from eureka street or from the vantage point of the northern neighbor rear yards, that's what ariel ford just showed us or from the mid block open space which is where i fit in, the reality is that the design has not changed all that much, i don't think, since may 19, that back part. it's still a series that looks to me like a series of long -- no! president olague: thank you very much. >> good ann, commissioners, my name is uta reichart. i will read clarify moon's letter who can't be here. she owns just north of the eureka project. they are rear yards adjoined. i lived in my property for many years and intend to return there. i'm greatly impacted by the design for 309 eureka street. i do want to note that i'm appreciated of their approach. i am requesting that you reduce its height and overall size. at the may 19, 2011, planning commission meeting, the commission continued the 309 eureka hearing and recommended that the project sponsor work with the d.r. requesters to revise the project. the commission suggested that they examine ways to minimize impact on the ford's property and to make the building more consistent and appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood by considering the roofline and the treatment of the bay window. we ask that the building be brought down 4 1/2 feet to grade. i am in support of these goals and i am especially concerned about lowering the height and reducing the impact on the fords property and my property, both of which will be shadowed by this new building. i have seen the sponsor's july 14, 2011 design and it does not address the commission's may 19 comments. the height has only been reduced a foot. the rare -- rear massing has been slightly reduced and is too large with relation to the north end properties. they reduced impact on the other properties by using transparent guard rails instead of opaque. the design does not resonate with the neighborhood. president olague: thank you. >> hello, my name is joe quickly and i'm here for my wife. we live at 313 eureka in the top, there is an apartment on the top that is about a floor and a half. i also spoke at the last meeting in may and i had a chance to look at some, the drawings we just saw here today and my and my wife's concern is that we can't really speak to the architectural integrity of the neighborhood, but we can tell you that it will have a massive impact on the amount of light that comes into our apartment. our kitchen window would be completely blocked and that's the main source of light into the kitchen. the new designs from what i have seen just there, it looks like the new designs will also block the main source of light into our bedroom, which is above the kitchen and the designs also show that as they did at the early meeting that all of our light into our
and i would like to read a few points. at the last hearing for this project, i put forward the proptation that the generic design was an odd response to the neighborhood, to this gabled port could domered character. they struck me as having produce aid design that was too dimensional, too large and lacking scale and definition. i know the work as their architect as i said earlier and was was hopeful that he would bring you a design that had more of the qualities that had actually won him awards all over the city and in this case, qualities of the neighboring cottages. i have surveyed the changes they have made and i have to say that i'm also disappointed. they seem to have cut and paste here and there and actually 14 inches, they may have well have taken one inch away from the tough. they seem to have cut and done a slope proof, but not really changed the character of the design. it seems a bit lifeless, a little intent on a very large mass which should be reduced, especially because they have a very special site. they have a very large north face, which could actually be used to receive those views and i urge you to give the added proposals better time and your thought and review. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm mary and i live in san francisco. i'm a friend of george and uta's. i spent a lot of time in their home on eureka street. over the years, i have listens to the saga of the design proposals and i want to offer my views as an architect and real estate agent with a good deal of experience in san francisco residential design. one thing i have learned over the years about san francisco real estate is that charm sells. it doesn't surprise me that they would want to build a new building on this block of eureka street. it's a great block and a great neighborhood. the reason for this is largely attributable to the existing physical attributes of the block. it's the modest scale and the finally textured quality of the buildings on this block and the history that gives the block its appeal and value. look at another way, if the block consisted of building and sizes that they are suggesting, this would be less appealing and the building less valuable. if just one other property on this block were to be the subject of a demolition proposed and the construction of something similar to that proposed, i suspect there would be an enormous outcry. a good design solution can be found for this site. the one proposed here is not. even with their limited resources, the neighbors have come up with something that is credible. it needs attention to the details, but it shows what can be done with a fresh aye and a willingness to reject preconceptions and to try on some new ideas. a desire to get out of the rut of one's own thinking, i know from having sat through many of these hearings that your job can be very trying and tedious, but i urge you not to give up. something better can be achieved here, something better for the owners and for their neighbors. it takes a little more flexibility and a little more effort. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is tony kim. i live a couple blocks away on 4558 19th street. the reason i'm here, i am undergoing a major renovation myself in the 11th month of my renovation. it's been relatively smooth. i have one story to tell. i have had all the permits, construction, and about halfway through the project after my structure started going you, one of the neighbors two doors down saw i had a deck on my top floor extending off my bedroom and they saw the steel and thought that it was a bit large. i decided to meet with them and in the spirit of relationships with the neighbors, i agreed within 48 hours to cut back my deck. i think it was a reasonable request and i adjusted, modified my design plans with my architect and we resolved the situation right there and then without having to come to you guys. so i'm familiar with the issues here between the sponsors and the d.r. requesters. in this case, i'm wondering why a similar process isn't taking place just having communications. it seems reasonable to address some of the issues by the neighbors and i guess it just seems to me that a solution can be worked out that's much more reasonable than what was initially proposed by the owners architect. i just urge them to consider a approach that is much more collaborative. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional comment in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor. >> good afternoon or good evening, i guess. it's almost evening. commissioners, i am the architect. so i would like to have the overhead show the image of the proposed new design now. i think that's the slides that were left on the computer, sorry. this is for the overhead. great, ok. so i just want to kind of it's rate what was announced or what was at the last hearing and we were consider to reduce the mass of the proposed structure for the north neighbor, reconfigure the building to make it more con textual generally and to try to work with the neighbors. i as an architect have been working with them as a consultant to help them with their design. as you know, they're a family of builders and they first approached me with their design and i have massaged it and after the last hearing, i promised that i would massage this building even further to work with it. we do have a lot of constraints on this building. i don't agree with the people who had just spoken that our revisions are unsubstantial. yes, the building was lowered 14 inches, but it also was reduced in the back and i'll show you the side of the building here so we can take a look at the reductions that have happened. so the building was pushed back completely all one foot and then most importantly on the third and fourth floors, the fourth floor was reduced another 3'6". the other was reduced 2-6. the corners of the building were clipped to reduce further the mass to the north neighborhood. overall, the entire project since this session has been reduced by 25% in square footage. since when it was submitted to the building department or for the planning review, we have removed about 703 square feet from the building project. the lower flat is currently 1,900 square feet, 1,950 square feet and the upper unit is 1,750 square feet. they are not incredibly large units. lowering the building further is not an option due to the need to project the adjacent large monterey cypress that was one of the d.r. requesters main concern, george king. he lifted that d.r. with the agreement that the building would not be lowered any further. if the building goes down any lower, it would be potentially damaging the tree says the arborist. i always wanted to say that the building not only steps back in the back, but it also steps on the side and that was always part of the original design. so from the fourth property, it is stepping back a majority of the building, stepping back three feet and the fourth floor is stepping back five feet from the property line. we are very restricted on this site because of planning assignments that set it back 15 feet from the front and a requirement to set it back on the south side three feet to reflect the setback on the george howsers side. we are restricted. regarding the architectural context, we have added the roof. that results in a building that is much more context really here. i don't agree this is a flimsy gesture. it helps in the streetscape and it does make the building fit in and it does disguise the fourth floor. an alternative could be a dormer window up there, but i know that we were trying to follow the planning guidelines which was to keep the main facade of the fourth floor back 15 feet. mind you, philosophically, this building isn't supposed to be a architectural masterpiece. it is designed to be a background building. have i approached it that way. they want a simple building. they want a building that they can live in. it's not supposed to be some dramatic fantastic glass box. they are trying to do the municipal possible which they can actually afford to build and live in they don't want to sell this property as a developer would. and ultimately, we do respect the right for the d.r. applicants to file their d.r.'s, but it's clear they have not been able to come to any agreement. we understand that the building is going to change their environment, but we also know that what we needed to actually focus on is not what they're proposing, but the merits of this project, does it fit in? does it make sense? there has been substantial compromises in this process and, therefore, i ask you not to take d.r. thank you. president olague: thank you. myra, patrick, gabriel, clare. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is nrra and i live at 311 eureka street. i plan to move back in when the project is complete. at the last hearing, it was suggested that we continue to work with our neighbors to try to arrive at a compromise. i realize we could have done a better job explaining to you how much we have already worked with our neighbors because it might not have been obvious. i have to say, i do take issue with the suggestions from the d.r. requesters that we haven't done enough already. so our packets include a timeline of meetings that we had beginning in december of 2008 when we invited our neighbors over to look out our designs before we submitted them. we made modifications to the plans based on feedback from the neighbors as a result of that meeting. we then made modifications to the plan during the residential design review process executing on each of the suggestions the design team made. the plans were approved last june and the d.r. filing date was a year ago on july 9 of 2010. in the 13 months since then, we have had hours of sitdown conversations and meetings to review plans and solicit input. we also had over 150 email exchanges specific to this project with the d.r. requesters. through this collaboration, we were able to reach a compromise such that, mr. king, that he removed his v.r. the design that we presented on may 19 included 311 square feet in reductions from the approved plan to accommodate our neighbors' concerns, but they still rejected our proposal. since late 2008, we have been in communication with mr. howser about the project. we made numerous requests on how they could be altered to address his concerns. we attended six hours of mediation to get a compromise. in spite of getting input on what we could change, nothing was acceptable to him. anything close to his property lines or living room window was a nonstarter. following the may 19 meeting, we have gone back to meet with the neighbors and made even more reductions, but despite our concessions they weren't interested in compromise. president olague: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. it's nice to see you again. my name is patrick and i'm the sponsor's son. our family has been working on this project with planning staff and the neighbors since about 2007. i would like to thank you for your comments last time that helped us with some direction on where we should go given the fact that the design wasn't too well accepted. commissioners moore, sugaya, and antonini commented directly on the aesthetic. they thought that it didn't fit the neighborhood very well and that we need to address what it looked like. this is the result that we came up with. we now feel that it is sympathetic to the block and it is no longer loud or obnoxiously different. the new roof that is actually at the front actually serves a purpose. it's not a false roof with no intent. since we have shrunk our floor space, we actually had to move utilities and furnace into that space at the front of the house. that was due to the effort of trying to pull back the third and the fourth floors. we had to put it somewhere. i did -- commissioner sugaya was talking quite a bit about an effort to lower the building. i consulted with the structural engineer and licensed arborist, showed him our problem, the monterey sigh press being the issue and both reports in your packet, both recommend we do not excavate. we were able to lower the building which i think is significant, 14 inches down. we took our date from the center of the property line, moved to the south and able to gain at least a little bit more. everything we tried was in an effort for the d.r. we do feel that mr. howser's d.r. is directed mostly at trying to preserve his property line windows. we think that that is his main concern, not some of the other concerns that he has stated before. in every design he has proposed shows him trying to protect those windows. thank you very much. i appreciate your time. >> sorry, commissioners, i thought i would make it, been sitting too long. hello, commissioners, my name is gabriel. i bought 309-311 eureka street in 1964 to start my family. i would like to explain why the d.r. requesters' proposal are not acceptable plans to my families. the howsers's plans are obviously designed to protect his views. the top reasons why they won't work. the plans eliminate along the 20th street property on the north side. this design will trigger another 311 notification and another d.r. filed by mr. king with a time delay and cost to my project. the plan of large decks that resemble the decks of aircraft carriers and don't conform to the open space as you can see from the rendering there. the roofs both slope towards mr. howser's building at 24 feet. just below his property line is one of those. and 16 feet below his roof. he also has two floors above that height. these two floors are talked about, the windows being blocked. those are property line windows that are not protected under the planning codes. the 411 plan, top added floor has an average ceiling height of 6'6" and a landing at 5'4" not code compliant. the c 11 plan is a split 11 and not accommodating to someone with my physical condition as one who should avoid stairs. there is also a 40-foot hall and entrance leading to a stairwell down to a bedroom and a den. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is clare and i appeared before you on may 19, and would again like to address the d.r. requesters on 20th street claims that are not exceptional or extraordinary. since our may 19 hearing, we have met with ariel ford to review our project as proposed and try to reach some common ground to address her concerns and still maintain the integrity of our family's plan to build two equal family-sized units. listening to the commissioners' suggestion to reduce the rear massing, we have done that by 14 inches. we have pulled in the first and second floor by 12 inches, the third floor by 2'6" and the fourth floor by 3'6". to dress softening the rear of the building, we have clipped off north side corners on the second, third, and fourth floors. we have always been sensitive to our neighbors on 20th street based on modifications based on feedback and after submitting to further address concerns about the perception of the building and access to light and air. we provided a comprehensive shade study that concluded the shading would be marginally different than the existing home. we are 37 feet away from the ford's home providing ample opportunity for light and air. during a recent meeting, she stated one of her main concerns is what she would see when she looked out her kitchen doors. we believe the fords have been misinformed about the scale of our project generating fears it will loom over us like an enormous fortress. it is unfortunate that despite all of the clarifications we have provided and the discussions we have engaged them, in they continue to hold fast to these misrepresentations. for example, our proposed building height will be nine feet taller than the existing roofline, not 19 feet. we have been open to honest discussion, compromise and have made concessions and have yet to see any in return or any acknowledge of the changes we have made. instead we are expected to build our homes dictated by and limited to d.r. applicants. thank you. president olague: thank you. emily scott, liz notware. >> good evening, commissioners. i am emily scott and i am myra's partner. i will be living in the upper unit when the project is complete. i wanted to address a few comments made at the commission at the last hearing. it was pointed out that we had friends and family to speak on our behalf, but no neighbors. we should point out to the commission that we actually have 11 letters of support from our neighbors. you should have this map on paying 3 of your pocket. we have the support, either written or verb alfrom all of the neighbors across the street, the owner of the apartment building adjacent to us, the neighbors directly behind us and their adjacent neighbor. at the last meeting. mr. howser had four neighbors spoke on his behalf. they didn't speak against the projects as much as his alternative plans. they never talked about concerns despite the multiple outreach opportunities they provided. if they had, with would be happy to explain the plans, the subterranean living space, acceptable to mr. howser and his wife was not acceptable to us. we have met with two of the homeowners who spoke in support of mr. howser's plan at the last hearing. they acknowledged that the updated design is much more in keep with the neighborhood context. we have exchanged email with another neighbor to provide accurate information light on h from our project is minimal and explain the modifications we have already made to be sensitive to the neighbors on 20th street. we would like to remind the commission that the planning staff has evaluated the d.r.'s and find they do not meet the criteria for exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. we recognized this from the beginning, but still made generous concessions to both parties. we understand this process requires compromise and we have done that, but neither of the d.r. requesters is willing to accept any compromises. thank you for your time. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is elaina. i'm clare's partner and will be living at 309 eureka street. i would like to speak to you to try to clarify some of the milk characterizations. his misleading presentation is to swayed our project. we want you have to the correct information on these points. the d.r. applicant says it is historic. it is not and the staff concurs. he has an alternative plan that destroys the building. the square footage comparison of mr. howser's alternative plans were overexaggerated by 728 square feet for the third level and 834 square feet for the fourth level. the height of our existing building is 26 feet, not 23 feet. the height of mr. howser's existing building is 36 feet, not 31 feet. the new building height at 64 feet from eureka street will be 30 feet tall, not 40 feet tall. he references a nonexistent 40-foot high wall along our shared property line to the south. it was important for us to defend our project against these inaccuracies. thank you very much for your time. >> good evening, commigsers, i'm liz, an attorney apparent and i own a home a couple of blocks from the owners who i have known for 15 years. i'm here to read a brief statement from a neighbor across the street. her statement reads, "i live across the street at 328 eureka street. my family met myra and clare. they have always been thoughtful neighbors. they endured without complaint living next door to a loud disruptive and lengthy construction project when 313 eureka was renovated by the owner. throughout the construction process, they remained cheerful and supportive neighbors even when the owner erected support beams on their property without permission and when construction impacted the fence in their yard. we have attended the neighborhood meetings they held last year and spoke with them directly with the project. they are respectful to open discussion and feedback. they have a great personal time and expense made many changes to the original plans for the sole purpose to try to satisfy the two d.r. applicants and have kept us included and informed throughout the process. i have received hard copies of all changes and have received verbal and written updates throughout the process. this has been a very long and challenging experience for their family. i respect their ongoing willingness to work with their neighbors. they have bent over backwards in the spirit of true compromise. we own our home. our daughters hasn't harvey nick civil rights academy and we plan to be here for a while because of these neighbors. i fully support the project at 311-309 eureka street. the updated look of the house will improve home values for the rest of us. everyone in this neighborhood will benefit from the project when done. sincerely, marlies warren. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> go ahead and start talking. it will show up. >> good evening, commissioners. i am jane, an architect. i have been practicing in san francisco and living here for the past 25 years. i have considerable experience working with clients in residential projects in the neighborhoods and my home is nearby in liberty heights. i would like to actually look at a couple of the drawings that were presented by the southerly most neighbor and i field polarly opposite as it is designed by the family. i feel that it's actually being representatively appropriate in scale and massing in terms of stepping back. they again have gone through considerable compromises in working with the neighbors as many of the family members have pointed out this evening. i also feel that the massing at the eureka side, if you notice, is actually very much in tune with what's happening with the immediate neighbors. i feel that the design as presented by the southerly most neighbor is actually out of scale. the elements, while maybe they fit in with the surrounding scale of the buildings and other parts of the neighborhood work, in this context they actually look small and miniaturish and almost "dollhouse" like. i would go back to the design as its presented and again with as much as the family has gone to reduce the square footage, the massing, the setbacks and given the fact that they cannot set the building any lower because of the landmark tree, i feel that you should support this project and please do not take the d.r. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional? >> good evening, i also spoke at the may 19th meeting. i'm here in support of the project as it's been presented. two issues that i have with the designer view. i have been working with this family on costs and also the income and realizing the design that has been presented by mr. howser creates an enormous amount of additional costs to the family. not to mention the fact that there is a good chance that it does kill that heritage tree. any excavation on the property will effect the root system of that tree. in addition, the owner is on a fixed income. these additional costs to him and to his family may not allow him to even build the project. it's a legacy house. it's not a development to be sold. it's not a spec development. it's there for the family and hopefully for generations to come. in addition, they have approximately reduced the project already in trying to make several, several compromises over the few years. 25%, approximately 800 square25.