Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Character topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press Planning Commission to reduce massing on proposed rebuild at 309–311 Eureka
Summary
A mandatory discretionary review for demolition and new construction at 309–311 Eureka Street exposed deep neighborhood divisions. Downslope homeowners said the proposed three‑story replacement would block light and feel like a ‘monolith’; the sponsor says the design creates two family‑sized units and incorporated concessions. The commission continued the item and asked parties to explore reduced rear massing, modest lowering and design changes.
A proposed demolition and rebuild at 309–311 Eureka Street became the meeting’s most contested item, drawing competing expert testimony and dozens of neighbors to argue whether a family‑led replacement should be allowed as proposed or redesigned to better fit the block’s stepped topography.
Planning staff described a three‑story‑over‑garage new building that would create two family‑sized units, increase living area and provide off‑street parking. Because the project proposes demolition and new construction it triggered mandatory discretionary review; two neighbors filed D.R.s alleging exceptional and extraordinary impacts to light, air, privacy and neighborhood character.
Neighbors downslope from the lot—including residents of 4437 Twentieth Street and nearby properties—showed photographs and shadow studies arguing that the proposed 36‑ to 45‑foot mass would substantially overshadow rear yards and interior rooms and break the mid‑block step‑down character. They presented an alternative massing study that uses excavation to create lower‑profile living areas while retaining programmatic goals.
The sponsor, the Friel family, and project team said the existing lower unit is substandard and the rebuild would produce two safe, modern family units; they emphasized multiple design concessions already made (reduced square footage, added setbacks, and other modifications). Several neighbors and community members supported the family proposal, and the sponsor said excavation below grade would pose accessibility, cost and drainage issues.
After extensive testimony and technical exchanges the commission determined there was room for additional design work. Commissioners directed staff and the sponsor to study options that could reduce rear massing, examine limited lowering/excavation scenarios consistent with tree protection and grade constraints, and explore design treatments that better harmonize with adjacent rooflines and block character. The commission continued the matter to July 28, 2011 to allow time for revised options to be developed and for further consultations.
Why it matters: The hearing illustrated how city policy balances property‑owner redevelopment rights with downslope neighbors’ light‑and‑air interests, and how design and massing choices can shape outcomes even when projects meet code height limits.
