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 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 neithero