lived in a basement apartment, in a basement studio and i can't recommend it. i'm just going to say that. if it wasn't extremely cheap and if it wasn't adjacent to the school think a worked at, i would not live there. so, that's basically all i have to offer. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment in support of probably sponsor? seeing none, d.r., did you speak? no? ok, yeah, if you wanted to submit, that's fine. [inaudible] ok. so is there any additional public comment in support of project sponsors? no? each d.r. request receives two minutes of rebuttal time. >> first of all, i want to make clear, we're not, you know, --

[inaudible] we just simply want them to accommodate us -- or you to accommodate us by -- [inaudible]. i'm an architect and i'm also a general contractor. i've done three projects including my own house. the spaces are dry, they're warm, they're comfortable. and also recently i'm doing a project on liberty hill and i've priced out that project and there's nothing extraordinary about the cost involved. [inaudible]. i wanted you to see these models, maps and models. on the right-hand side is the proposal. on the lower left is our proposal. and then the existing condition is in the upper left and you can -- again you, can see how they're building right above the slope of the terrain and we want them to have a nice house, we want them to enjoy their house

and we respect their needs to build it, we think they're a very nice family. we just want them to be more sympathetic to the needs of the surrounding neighbors and do it in a way that is appropriate for them. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> there's been a lot of talk about the sight in and ultimately the -- sunlight and ultimately the natural light in the home is the main issue. here's the back of our house. there have been shadow studies done, there's been back and forth on what they show but i can tell you after living there for nine years, the sun starts at the morning and at about 2:00 p.m. every day it goes behind the house. it would take that sunlight away entirely and we would no longer have sunlight coming into our home so i do hope that you'll take that into consideration. president olague: project sponsor, you have two minutes.

>> is this on? ok, great. i think that ultimately the commission has to look at the arguments that have been put forth and decide, you know, who has the right to do what to their property. the family had reviewed the plan that was developed by mr. howser here and they rejected it. there was actually -- the plan did not work for them. they wanted to have two fairly equal flats so the sisters didn't have flat envy and they wanted to be able to design their house in the way that they wanted to but they also realized they were impacting the neighborhood. i think that in regards to before, we did work very earnestly in regards to their concerns and sat in their room and looked at the sunlight that was being potentially blocked and we know that -- everyone knows here they're not talking about the view.

but in this case, it was mentioned that the biggest concern was the sky view and we understand that. that's why the building was cut back. i do want to say that in regards to this question about lowering the building, lowering the building, this is like the constant thing. well with, why does one need to lower the building when we actually have this other d.r. applicant that removed his d.r. request after we agreed to not lower the building? because he owns the big tree that blocks a majority of the sunlight in the neighborhood. and so to get that d.r. removed because of the concerns of the roots of the tree, the elevation could not be lowered. we had ann arborist check this and confirm that the roots of the tree are coming up to the bottom of the foundation. so it really would be -- we would be facing another d.r. if we lowered it further. there was some concerns, i just wanted to show you actually the scale of the rendering here with

mr. howser's property here. just to show that it actually is not, i don't believe, out of scale and i think it's in character with the neighborhood. thank you. president olague: public hearing is closed. commissioner sugaya: this does not have to do with the project in question. i've been struggling here for the entire time since this started whether or not i should voice a potential conflict of interest. it doesn't have to do with the project sponsor so i'm not quite sure if it is a conflict or not. but it has to do with the d.r. requester. and mr. howser's firm hired a company a number of years ago to perform his historic resource evaluation on the strand theater and that was a number of years ago. it turned out not to be a good

situation, i won't reveal what that situation is because it's somewhat irrelevant to the public, but i think i feel that i can continue on and have an objective opinion about this unless commissioners feel that i should recuse myself. all right, thank you. commissioner antonini: this is a hard one, definitely. the one thing in trying to judge the height accurately is really difficult. i've been looking at the pictures over there and there is quite a difference in height among the various structures along that 300 block of eureka on the same side as well as the opposite side of the street. however, the one thing that really strikes me here is the design and we have a almost very uniform looking type of pattern

of housing in existing, fairly traditional, and i don't see any of those elements here even using the more modern materials, that being, you know, gabbled roofs mostly, with -- some with stormers, certainly with a pitch. a lot of sun porches are present, board siding most of the time. certainly french windows and french doors with mull ons which we don't have here in the design. i think there's too much glazing on these windows or at least if there were some moldings and mullions to break it up it might tend to mitigate a little bit. so certainly i would like to see some kind of a modification of the architecture to try to make it a little more sympathetic to the entire neighborhood. also, it might be possible if the root pattern was changed, without taking that story off, because i know you need the additional square footage to

accommodate your needs, perhaps a pitched roof with dormers might -- a different design might a little more light into the neighbors, particularly the ones to the lower side which is very critical, i think, and still get you the square footage you need because the pitch would allow you to tailor it in such a way that you could allow some of the light to flow through. rather than having even -- even though it's set back, the top is a box and those windows are really -- i don't like the way they look relative to the rest of the neighborhood, particularly on the upper floor. but we'll see what the other commissioners have to say. vice president miguel: yes, i guess i have to take a very opposite view because i don't think this is difficult at all. the question before us is -- as i see it are two d.r.'s. we have to determine whether there's anything exceptional or extraordinary. i see nothing exceptional or extraordinary.

i have not heard the neighbors complain about a more modern design. i have different architectural thoughts than commissioner antonini does in that sense. i happen to like the design. i definitely would not like the neighbors' proposal of going down into a bunker. doesn't work for me at all. there's too many other aspects to it that i won't go into now. but as i say, i see nothing exceptional or extraordinary and i'm going to move on 18-a, not to take discretionary review and approve the demolition, on 18-b, not to take discretionary review and support the new construction as proposed and the same thing

on 18-c. commissioner moore: the discretionary should not be about taste in architecture but i personally do not believe that this particular building design responds to the circumstance. i think the buildings on the street based on the photograph we have in front of us are all very modest buildings, there's not any attempt to be any particular architecture but buildings are understated and i think that is their most redeeming quality. together they form an expression which we like to encourage steps down, how that is achieved, i don't want to discuss at this moment, but the building, because it is quite loud, in it's being different, is not a building i think which responds very well to the correct circumstance of what quite a few people are talking about here. the fact that the modern

building has as much support is basically rooted in the fact that its family and friends were coming to speak for it. that in itself is very good and very nice because it speaks to the quality of the family, but it does not really create any larger residence as to whether or not the building fits or doesn't fit. and in just glimpsing at the photos and it's a very helpful tooling, the building itself does not speak to me as being a good choice for this neighborhood. i just can't be clearer about it. we have seen buildings very similar design and each time this group has reacted to it, because this building's trying to do a little bit too much. it is so i think in its attempt to be modern, not modest enough to be really modern in a sense, in a quiet sense. so i don't really -- i would be asking for -- i would take the

d.r. and really would hope that the two parties who are entitled to fully realizing what their need for the families work a little bit more with each other and come up with a more harmonious solution with each other. president olague: i heard commissioner miguel made a motion, i didn't hear a second. commissioner moore made a motion and i don't hear a second. commissioner moore: i would take the d.r. and ask that we not decide on this building today, that both parties come together in a more discretionary and appropriate response to the architecture and work on a different building solution. i am not prepared to -- commissioner antonini: that might be more properly continuous. commissioner moore: yes, thank you, i'm getting tired.

commissioner antonini: i will second your motion for continuance. commissioner moore: yeah, let's continue it and give it some instructions what have we're expecting. two months. 10 weeks, i don't know. >> i second it. july 20. president olague: july 28. it may not come back to us if they're able to resolve it. that's the goal. commissioner sugaya: i think there's a number of different -- no, no, i think there are various opinions about what the neighborhood character is or isn't and i think that there's been some terms used as far as looking at the street as being a mixture of things and diversity's been used. but from my viewpoint, looking at the streetscape, some of the

diversity is created by bad buildings and so i agree with commissioner moore and commissioner antonini that there needs to be some work done here. you know, the ones that create the diversity i don't think are really good pieces of architecture at all and if that's what you're trying to refer to, you know, i personally would have to disagree with that viewpoint. that said, i don't want to leave the project sponsor out there hanging about redesigning something and i think one of the issues -- the main issue i think apart from some of the things commissioner moore was talking about and antonini with respect to the design has to do with the height. and i'm not really sure that that is resolvable. i do believe, however, that you can excavate and have a lower unit that is quite livable and

-- but on the other hand, i don't know what the cost is, there's testimony by a gentleman who said that's going to be a really expensive venture. i can see depending on the soil situation and the ground situation that it could be extremely expensive, especially if we're, i don't know what the conditions are there, whether it's bedrock or whether there's a lot of, you know, dirt and stuff that might be easily excavated but it could turn out to be an expensive proposition and so i think that's a factor to take into consideration. i did ask staff whether there done a -- could be a lowering not but a -- by a full story but some lowering of the building but some excavation going on but then, you know, we'd have to take into consideration the tree itself, it is quite a large tree and i imagine if the roots go

out as far as the branches which sometimes has been thrown at us as a measure, they must go out fairly far. so that's another problem that we're fatesing. -- facing. so it's not an he'sy situation. i'm quite supportive of the continuance but i really don't know what the result is going to be. commissioner fong: thank you. and i might have been a little bit slow in seconding commissioner miguel's motion but sometimes we want to hear what we're all thinking and get to some sort of compromise before jumping to a motion. but a couple of thoughts. i want to see this family build their dream. this is clearla family house and with so many people leaving san francisco and families leaving san francisco i think it's important that we have places to gather for thanksgiving and christmas or whatever holiday you might celebrate.

to the neighbor at 313, i think probably there was always the potential of the northern side windows being blocked. there was also a potential when you assume the property that someone might have built up a location there that might have blocked some of that window. they're phenomenal views, i did see the article in the paper and was impressed by the architecture and design. lowering the home as suggested by the neighbor i think is difficult because of the tree. i think it makes your home on 20th street probably even more claustrophobic if you start to lower that so i rule that out. i am in favor of continuing the item but i, you know, want to make sure we're going to give or are able to give some clear direction, otherwise we're just kind of throwing it back in the wind and we're going to see it again the same status it is now. i don't have the technical expertise to redesign something nor do i think we with should but i'm not in favor of it being lowered, i'm in favor of new

structure being built. and amassing maybe a little bit smaller -- i'm not even going to comment on design because that's not been brought up nor do i think it's our responsibility for that. commissioner borden: i just want to actually echo what has been said. i think that the issue we need to deal with is decide what are some of the issues we want them to tackle. i personally think that maybe amassing at the back of the property because the light and air comes from the downhill people, i don't have a square footage or a number of feet that i could stress but if there's some way to minimize, bring in some of the back or keep some of the height at the top of the building and lessen it at the bottom, i'm not an expert by any stretch to make it seem less massive. that might be the result. i am supportive of trying to be accomplished here and i would like to see this project be able to go forward. i respect the fact that there

are people who live downhill and i'm particularly concerned about their light and air and i do want to deal with that. i'm less concerned about the next door neighbor's property line windows -- windows and dispute that seems to be related to the fact that they chose to build their property in a particular way. i'm not so interested in that but i do think that there is a little bit of things that could be dealt with to better address the light and air and the kind of larger imposing view of the building from the other sides. so that's what i would say. i would look to my colleagues, commissioner moore who is an architect, or commissioner sugayay, who is planner and might have better ideas in that regard. but i think we don't foresee that we will be any better off with a continuance unless we actually kind of bless some sort of direction.

president olague: i am really he will luck -- reluctant to continue yet another item on today's calendar. and then my goals going forward just through the end of 2011 will be no more continuances. i actually, though, i thought i would be kind of in the minority up here so i didn't pursue any conversations with staff because i respect the work of the architect, but i believe -- i don't think that this building is in context at all. i think it is just completely out of context with the neighborhood, actually. and i'm not averse to modern design, i love -- i love his work usually. but for some reason here i just don't think this design works in this neighborhood. and so i agree with the comments of commissioner moore and commissioner antonini as far as the context of this building

there. so i just assumed i'll probably not support the building and everybody else will. i apologize to staff for not getting back to you sooner. i agree with commissioner borden's comments that maybe something can be done with the rear of the building. but i do also agree with commissioner fong that this is the family's dream and certainly we want to see them pursue their project there but there are so many difficulties. the tree and that should be definitely protected and then also the needs of the family and so there's all these things to consider. but i wish there were a way we could resolve some of these issues here tonight. give direction, take d.r., give direction to the architect and then maybe ask that the design come back. but i'm not sure if we're at place where we can get there.

commissioner moore: i don't think for me personaly, it's not as much about giving direction but encouraging that the buildings ar manize in a more persuasive way. they come interest very, very different ends of practice -- different -- they come from very, very different ends of practice. he's designed his own home to be in harmony with adjoining homes which was very well explained. somebody else wants to make a statement and still one fit and perhaps more than one group of people filing a d.r. here where there is credibility that this home needs to be more modified. there's not a single d.r., it's not just mr. holiday but -- howser but there's others. i don't think mr. howser can tell his neighbor what to do. it's a great idea to work with your neighbors and have ideas, put your energy into a dialogue

in which you're not just criticized but you also participate in solutions. there's a -- work with them. for example, in the studies and how we need certain jaggedy edges are in conflict there, that's where compromise lies. that's where the roof could be shaved or balconies could be pulled back. i'm not even interested in that but i want to find those points of where there are tools to really talk to each other and that doesn't mean that in the end this new building for the family is a totally traditional looking building but it's one which understands taking the existing elements and bringing them forward in perhaps a modern event ac lar, in the modern building expression but not to the extent that it's jarring and

that's what we have at the moment. that's as far as i would want to verbalize my own encouragement for using the tools, communicating with each other, even when you are coming from different ends in architecture. president olague: maybe there's some clarification. >> i understand style and so we could talk about style in regards to modifying the building in that respect. but what i'm trying to understand is the massing of the building and i think that actually needs to be addressed here. because there have been suggestions from the d.r. applicants that we remove a whole floor. and, you know, as i mentioned in my testimony that we have an eight-foot ceiling, we have tried to, we went through two mediation sessions. president olague: i didn't hear -- yeah -- yeah. >> a little bit of clarification. i think that's very critical to understanding -- president olague: that mikes

sense. didn't hear -- that makes sense. i didn't hear anyone up here saying anything about removing a floor. or going underneath, clearly. but the massing, you're right there should be some more clarification on a piece of that. commissioner moore: you might have to to pull in the floor and not have it extend all the wayed to the tot outside. you might have to shape the roof, you might have to shape how that top floor sits on top of the extensive massing of the building. you're basically squaring out a block and you might have to pull that in in some form or another. it doesn't look that way. so that is where the challenge lies. it still looks very much bulked out. commissioner antonini: i would agree with i think what the other commissioners are saying. we're not necessarily saying to take a floor off but by scupting the upper floor, perhaps making it more in harmony with the rest rather than just a setback, you

can take some clues, actually the building to the north or the uphill side which is the craftsmen house and actually they did a good job with the two garages, i'm not quite sure, the one little garage stands by itself, even in the new plan and i'm not sure if there's any way you can use any of that to tie that into the house. i know would you have to go higher on that and that might be a problem but not all the way up, but it just seems like a little orphan garage down there and i'm not quite sure if we can do anything above that or in that area. >> i just wanted to clarify that the garage shown is of the adjacent neighborhood, not of the subject property. commissioner antonini: ok, we're not looking at that. that garage belongs to the house next door. ok, got it. all right. that being said, you do have some limitations in the amount, the number of feet you have as frontage.

i didn't look at it, is it 25 feet? so we're fairly limited there. so that's a challenge. but whatever you can do to try wherever possible to let us much light in by redesigning and changing the appearance a little bit at the same time letting light in, just by perhaps the gable or something like that on the upper floor, that might make it a lot -- you accomplish all the square footage you had before but it's shaped a little different direction. commissioner sugaya: again, i don't want to redesign the building here. but some considerations might be that the front base, you know, extend all the way up to the top without a cap of some kind, i'm not talking about a cornice but that might be something to look at as a more detailed design. consideration. i'd also encourage project sponsor to see if they can't lower the building a little bit.

we're not talking about a full floor, i don't think. i suppose once you start excavating you might as well go lower. but if you could take a look at that and see how that might affect it, might not affect the tree and what that does to your bottom line, i think the commission would with appreciate at least taking a look at that and getting back to us at the next hearing. if it can be accomplished, i think it would help. i don't know if it will appease the d.r. requesters that it only go down a little bit instead of a full floor but it might help and in terms of massing in scale, there's the whole issue of how much square footage you have and some consideration there also combined with massing and what not might also be something to take a look at, especially on the upper level. we just knocked a whole half a floor off of a previous design.

so we're not adverse to taking some action like that. i'm not suggesting that you do that here but if you sat through , was it pleasant street? we did take half of a square footage away on the upper level. >> thank you. i think we've gotten some fairly good direction of areas that we can work and study with the architect concerning the areas of massing in the rear, cosmetic work in the front, studying how low they can conceivably excavate without necessarily damaging the tree roots. looking at a design that's perhaps a little bit more in conformity with the neighborhood and a little bit more modest. these are the terms that i've been taking notes of from your dialogue. i think with this direction we can work with the architect as well as our own