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. 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