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 historic preservation community. they agreed that the level of environmental review what effect these historic resources, and no significant impact has been identified. the staff published this on june 22 and the public comments closes on august 8. for those of you who wish to comment, written comments should be presented to the environmental review officer by 5:00 p.m., august 8. four members of the public to provide comments, please state your name and address, as the

comments and response document may be sent to you. please speak clearly so the court reporter can have an accurate transcript. and the accuracy -- we will also take any comments from the draft e.i.r. they will all be transcribed and responded to in the comments and responses document. the planning department will provide a copy to those requests to see this. this concludes my presentation and unless you have any questions, i would ask that the public hearing be opened. thank you. >> we open up for public comment? we have no speaker cards. >> sue hester.

can i explain an issue ommitted by the staff? ok, i will use it against my time. this site was not posted in compliance with the rules. 801 brannan has one building site on 7th street. this is the secondary entrance and this was ripped off. six days after the document was released, the only visible sign, if you walk around the block, the building itself was not posted. nobody knows what this is like, going through this process. the concourse is where this is held and nobody knows about this. the building was finally posted on the sixth of july. a couple of weeks later -- they

should have had 60 days of commons because of the scope of the project. it was given 45 days and most of them did not have postings on the most critical building the public is interested in, people go to this but did not know that this is going to be demolished. that is my time. this is an 824 dwelling unit project, with 799 parking spaces. they are planning something i have never seen, they say that they will have extra parking because of the contractual obligation because of the prior sales of the property. this basically has one ownership, and they have contracted the sale. they say they need 166 extra parking spaces.

there should be an analysis of the project that does not have the parking spaces because they're not supposed to be given incentives to have parking entitlements. this is a project between a couple of freeway systems, and i use this page, the page that shows the transit lines. these lines, all of those in yellow, they are not there very often. the 47 is a good line. right around here, this does not really provide adequate transit service and i will do a written comment on this. there is no project application so you cannot get any information on this project. they have been allowed to proceed without filing an

application. we do not know the details of this project and i am trying to understand this. thank you. >> the good evening. on behalf of the housing action coalition, we had a presentation on this yesterday, and this is unusual to us, in that it did not have a detailed design, but it had the map laid out for the site, and david baker was there. we saw an excellent presentation. we are very interested here and we have known about this for years. this got held up, not only by the evolution of the eastern neighborhoods, but the last business cycle. this is a terrific opportunity, and we look forward to following this.

this will be significant because this has been recognized as the poster child of land dedication, with a fabulous opportunity for subsidized and affordable housing on this, carving off a large chunk of the site, with the mayor's office and housing. we would love to see the density blown out and we would love to have a lot of housing in this location. there was a lot of enthusiasm and we want to follow this. >> and is there additional public comment? public comment is closed. >> we have written comments, but as something brief right now, i was shown, and very early, drawings of a project on the site, by bill and mary murphy.

this could have been 10 years ago. this has of all to ever since then, to the eastern neighborhoods projects and the process and through the economy. as well as what else has been happening in the immediate neighborhood, including one of david baker's projects. that is through the area, actually. the public has known about this for a very long time. the neighborhood association has known about this for a very long time. i actually look forward to seeing the more current iterations and details as they come forward. >> commissioner? >> this is much like a project we had earlier, and this was

probably 2003 or 2004, and these held up during the eastern neighborhood situation. and so, this is a pleasant surprise that we finally see them coming forward, and i see some of the rendering sirrah, and from what i see these look very good. this is not what we're here for. we will have comments on the environmental draft and the impact report, and will be able to send in the comments, and we will take responses and see the project after this is completed. commissioner moore: i look at this as a program e.i.r. with the particular time that this stance, and the architects with

the original sketches are not even in business anymore. be that as it may, i would very much like to see this with some of the ideas that came in with the eastern neighborhood. this is tempered by the strong issues that underlie building in this neighborhood. quite a few things have changed. this falls within the policy decisions that we have made an i am concerned, relative to the deal, that this raises my concerns because we have a number of powerful systems, in this area.

these need to be challenged, and they work with this commission very well, anyway. i would like to see the quality of the aspects to be more in line of what can be done, because there is as intense to create projects that challenge what they ask for us to do. >> i think we do have to pay careful attention to the final eastern neighborhoods decisions, because there were details, and may involve this and the allowances as part of the eastern neighborhood. this is not an exception. this is in line, even when the supervisors were there.

>> this is part of the dialogue, -- >> that is what they had in the square. commissioner sugaya: as we are looking into the parking, there is the environmental impact. we will have to take this up at the time it comes through with the project. >> and is there any sign of an extension for the comments? >> my understanding is that this was posted. excuse me. my understanding is that this was posted and some of the signs were removed at some time in the process. sequa allows the choice of three different kinds of posting.