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 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