street. while their proposal is 36.25 feet tall. it increases the depth of their building about 18 feet and of more concern, adds a large volume of space to the rear. this will cover over my rear yard south facing room and deck, which you can see in the photo. instead of being able to see the sky and the roofscapes of other houses, i will be be looking at a large blocking mass. the proposed 309 would have a similar effect on my next door's neighbors. several neighbors have presented a scheme that will provide them with many of the features that are present in their current

proposal but will have much less impact on the size available to the properties to the north. these schemes take advantage of the natural slope of the block to reduce the height of 309 and nevertheless put its lower level below the elevation of my rear yard. this makes sense to me because it means 309 will not tower over my rear yard and south-facing rooms. i think the solution will be better into the way of other buildings on eureka street, conform to the natural slope of the land. whatever you decide, i hope it results in a much lower and less massive 309 project. president olague: duran ford followed by joseph quigly. >> i'm duran ford and i live on

20th street at 4437 and as a happy owner and resident of that block, i have a lot of happy memories in my back yard with my three boys, my family and my kids. it's like a little oasis for us, a little place to get away. and due to the unique top oggra if i of our lovely city, we are dug into the hill behind us. dirt, concrete walls. we're in. and i have done my best to improve it, adding decks, planting, the natural light that does make it over their house now doesn't reach the grass six months of the year. the entire back of our house is going to be in the shade. my personal philosophy is pro-development.

they should be allowed utilize their property, expand on it, make it better. but i do think that needs to be balanced with the neighborhood, the compact nature of the living arrangements of san francisco and everyone else's needs, too. i feel this project is a bit unbalanced and it satisfies their needs but leaves us kind of down in a dark hole and without a lot of recourse but with this big monolith. i hope to find some middle ground that satisfies everybody. thanks. >> i'm joe quig lee and my wife were planning to live on the top floor of 313. we live on top of george and

juda. and one of the things that we love about the apartment and one of the things we took the apartment is because of the light and because of light and the views and so our concern is that if the project goes through as proposed, it will -- to be quite honest, it will make our experience in the apartment less enjoyable. our principal source of light in the kitchen and living room, in the living room is a wall of windows that faces the north and faces the proposed building at 309 and from the drawings i have been looking at, it seems like that light will be completely obscured and the view would be obscured. in the kitchen, there is one principal source of light. small window that faces the front and main source of light is a window that faces north and

nayses the proposed building and from the designs that i have seen looks like that window would be completely obscured. so i wish -- they seem like wonderful people and they are very nice to me and i wish them all the best in their project but this is the best chance to let you know it would have an impact on the quality of our life in that apartment. president olague: thank you. are there additional speakers in support of the d.r. request? no snr project sponsor. >> gr evening, commissioners. i'm here to speak on behalf of my family in support of our project. i live at 311 eureka street, a

building owned by my parents since 1964 and i have lived there in the past 16 years and also my sister. the reality of the building is that while it's two units, only one unit can be considered family-sized. the lower unit is small, cold and dark due to lack of access of light. we would like to have two family units to allow me and claire to live cufflely. improving this plan is a long-term plan. we engaged with our neighbors to gather their input and had many meetings, phone calls and email exchanges to make sure we were providing the opportunity for feedback. as our drawing will show, our plans have changed significantly to provide concessions that will address any concerns that have been raised. it's our opinion and that of the

san francisco planning department staff that the objections put forth by the d.r. requesters feel to meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances. it is our belief that the plaket from 313 objects to our project because he wishes to protect his view to the north and his property line windows. they will have to be covered up when we improve our home. he is all too familiar with the reality neither of these are protected so he is trying other tactics. as you can see this from an article, this is the view they have over our building to the north. his claim that the building has historical significance has been shown to be inaccurate. his concerns about the historical significance as his proposal alternative plan would destroy the building. his claim that the building that our project will impact air and

light lacks merit. you see the location of our project. we didn't feel these were exceptional or extraordinary, we reduced the square footage of our upper unit to lessen the impact. we appreciate the time and effort taken by the city planning staff to review the d.r. requester's documents which led to their conclusion that the issues present -- the issues don't present exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. we ask you to approve our project. >> i'll go through the merits of the reduction and what has happened from the project. i just wanted to show you this diagram here that showed the proposed plan as it has been modified from the planning and through the neighborhood process. this is actually what would be allowed per the planning code.

i wanted to go over that. the building has been reduced in height from 40 feet to 36 feet. actually, it is eight feet so there is no place to lower this building. in the rear here, the building is not extending the full distance that is per where the rear yard would be. it is two feet less and sets back six feet over what we are calling the second floor and additional four feet on the third floor. in the negotiations with the neighborhood, the site has been set back an additional three feet and also on the top floor, an additional two feet. there is a five-foot separation there. and in speaking with the fords, which we >> mainly concerned about their light, we knew there was going to be an impact. we did do a sun study which shows little impact. unfortunately because they are

downslope and don't get much light afternoon because of their location, the height of our building is not really affecting significantly their light. and i could introduce the light study if you would like to see that. ultimately, we need to talk about the neighbors have proposed another design for this project. is that appropriate for them to consider? they actually have reasons why they wanted to go with this plan. and they have actually reduced the amount of square footage by 600 square feet from the original proposed plan, 300 per planning request and 300 -- in regards to the neighborhood. so i would say that they have done a lot of negotiations and tried to work with the neighbors and unfortunately it seems like there is an impasse here. president olague: we will hear in support of the project

sponsor, joes yee and patrick, claire. >> good afternoon. my name is josie and i moved to san francisco from ireland in 1964. my husband and i made eureka street our home. our children were born here. we have many, many happy memories of our time living as a young family on eureka street. we are fortunate to still own the property in the neighborhood that we have loved and we are so grateful that our family is able to benefit from it. we are now in a position to create two equal family sized units for our daughters.

we are not developers and not looking to sell the property. my husband who is disabled and i may return to eureka street when we can no longer live on our own. i request that you do not take d.r. and approve the project as submitted. thank you for your time and consideration. this is my babies when we were living there. >> thank you very much for your time. i know it's late. i'm a licensed general contractor and working with my father and sisters on this project for the last seven

years. i would like to address three claims that mr. haaser has made that are neither exceptional nor extraordinary. light and air, aside from the fact that his house is wrapped with windows, our building is situated to the north and shadowing is impossible. in order to address his concerns, we have incorporated a light well on the south side of our property that matches what used to be a light well on his property. our light well runs 32 feet towards the rear yard and is clear from the ground up to the sky. any negative impact to light and air is self-induced to the fact that he build his ground floor out to property line and has an overhanging walkway that runs the full length of his north wall. massing. we feel the massing comparisons

and comments provided to you by mr. haaser are inaccurate and misleezing. our design is four feet below our permittable height as well as his building ridge line. we have made modifications that reduce the setbacks on all four sides of our building and are the last west lot facing downhill slope and the north side of our building is exposed as it runs perpendicular to the properties on 20th. we are asking consideration for fair judgment when using the guidelines that are approached to our house and the design is fair and complements the neighborhood. historical, there is a claim made that our building has historical value, and that is not true. a detailed report by kelly confirmed that 309-311 eureka is

not a historical resource. this fact is backed up by historical resource response generated by planning staff department and they have approved our project for demolition. i would like to show -- this couldn't fit in the pakistan that was turned out to you. but what it does -- fit in the packet that was turned out to you, but what it does, the street scape as it is currently right now. you can see what i'm talking about on this house on 20th. president olague: thank you. >> gabrielle, emily and elena.

>> my name is gabrielle. and when i received the notification from the planning department for the addition, i called the planner concerns that his property line would be used as an excuse to prevent me from achieving my goals to build on my property. i told him that i didn't object and homeowner should be able to build what he wanted on his property so long as he kept it within the permitted city guidelines.

he assured me that george would have to sign and have a note rised declaration saying that among other things, it couldn't be used as an excuse to object to my building. i want to thank him for the plans he created for my project, but i have over 60 years of construction experience. my son has experience for 20 years and my daughter has been in project management. between us we have the experience and skills to design a home that will work for our family. to help and guidance of mr. washington and residential design time, site planners we accomplished most of what we set ut out to accomplish. the alternative plans proposed and the other applicant require

the bottom floor -- this will not -- this will not work for a number of reasons. hopefully you will look at the photographs which demonstrate the reasons why this is not a reasonable option. the main reason is that i'm disabled and would not be able to negotiate the stairs. i thank you for your time and ask you not to take the d.r. and approve the project. >> i'm emily scott and my partner is jane freel. >> it was difficult to live there because it is cold dark and damp.

the alternative plans is unacceptable in my opinion. i can't imagine living in a lower unit that is constructed below grade level. the possible issues of mold, loss of heat and access to adequate amount of light would be exhausting and depressing to deal with on a day-to-day basis. the freely family has engaged neighbors and their efforts have been tireless, thoughtful and generous. they have made numerous concessions and i can't imagine what else they could have done to accept the neighbors. i ask you to approve this project. thank you. >> good evening, i'm claire freel and i will be occupying the lower level in 309.

i would like to address the concerns. i would like to thank the fords for their willingness to participate in a dialogue with us. regarding light and air. in an effort to provide clarity, we conducted a comprehensive shade study. this study concluded that the shading is different than it is with the existing building. to further address the fourth concerns about shading, we offered to set back the second floor by three feet and the third floor by an additional two feet along our north side property line. we also offered a rear setback of six feet on both the second and third floors. these changes offered result in a reduction of 311 square feet. our building is located 37 feet away from the ford's building clearly providing a.m. will opportunity for air. regarding massing, the fords who

live downhill state they support mr. haaser's ex cavings plan. i object to this. this plan suggests building and installing property line windows below grade on our north property line under an incorrect assumption that the ford's property line is 7 feet below grade but it is 2 feet and has a retaining wall with a five-foot fence on top of that. this will eliminate any windows on the top of the building. the windows on the south side for both floors of the lower unit would be nine foot below grade or directly face the haaser's property line wall. windows at the rear of the building would be below grade and would have limited access to direct light. while i do respect the desire to protect what they feel is their business interests and investments they are asking we

compromise ours. we are entitled to the same rights and privileges that they have and we should be able to enhance our homes. please support our project. thank you for your time and consideration. >> good evening. my name is gil and i'm a neighbor of the freels for 15 years and gabriel has consulted with me on this project in order to apiece the neighbors and try to close down and make the building as small as possible so it would make everybody happy. but in doing this, he has suffered a lot of the light has been taken away from the building and now they want the one in the basement and as a general contractor, it costs a

lot of money to do that. and not only that, you would have to shore up the neighbors' foundations and you also have a really, really big loss of light. so it's not an option and i have worked in this neighborhood and there is a river that flows down eureka street under the earth, 10 feet below and will have a lot of dampness. so this would have to be above grade and i don't think they have to suffer mental anguish in order to get to this point and it's like a shrinking box. i appreciate the time.

>> i'm claire freel's partner and will be living in the lower unit once the project is completed. i have lived in san francisco for the last 20 years and eureka valley for the last seven. this -- i appreciate the neighborhood and the surrounding community. and i believe this project will not only be a beautiful new building but enhance the surrounding neighborhood that i love. claire and i have chosen to live in the lower unit so we would be able to enjoy the yard and have easy access for our two large dogs. any reduction in the size of the yard is proposed by one of the d.r. plakets would diminish one of the most important features. i ask you that approve the project as submitted. thank you very much for your time.

>> i'm in support of the project. i have 10 years experience in the construction field as it relates to finance as well as project costs for new homes, multi tenant homes and remodels. as part of the project preparation, we went over the costs several times. financial impact, retired senior on a fixed income, job-related costs. they do not want to ex cavity as has been proposed by the d.r. applicant, the effect would be significant job cost increases that would prohibit the project. the costs could be as high as 35% to 45% of the total budget. mr. freel has budgeted to build a home as currently ploped and to suggest a radical change to

include excavation would prevent him from pursuing their goals. i would appeal to the commission's sense of fair judgment and ask that they do not seek the d.r. and approve the project as proposed. >> i started out as 23 and castro and my grandparents lived on the 300 block of eureka. i have known the freel people since 1976. they are the exact kind of family that i think -- they are an asset to the neighborhood and kind of family that this neighborhood needs. the neighborhood i lived -- for 10 years i lived on 20th and castro street. it is a very, very important neighborhood to me and i think

that the freels' plan fits in line with the neighborhood and it adds value. it is a beautifully constructed and the appearance is wonderful and it fits right in with the neighborhood. i commend the freel for all the work they have done. they have gone above and beyond working with the neighbors and tried to take into consideration everyone's concern. they can't please everyone that is impossible. this commission knows that better than anyone. and they have given up more than they probably had to and did that for the benefit of the neighborhood and that's the kind of people they are. they have owned the building since 1964. this isn't -- they aren't looking to make money off of this but a better home for their family and family's family to come. and i hope you approve the project.

president olague: we have three more witnesses. >> i'm a third generation citizen of san francisco, my grand parents raised us here. i have been blessed to know them since the mid-1980's and spent many days and nights in their house which has become the knew clee us of the freel children and grandchildren. when my children and their cousins spend the night, they know they are sleeping in a room that belonged to their mom or dad. it is a very special place to visit. it is where our family started. hearing the history of gabrielle and josie moving to america and

raising their children. details of this fresh irish family and their experiences in a young san francisco are forever embedded in our hearts and live on at the eureka street address. i know the commitment and pride of the freel family and the devotion they have to their friends and to their community. the 1960's, you eureka house has served its purpose to see the young irish family grow and move on. it has seen the children into adulthood. a reconstruction of this house would allow assurance to the freels that their adult children live in a safe new home that they may enjoy with their families. i ask you to please not proceed with the d.r. filing allow the freels to build their future generation.