. >> it should also be mentioned this is not the first time the architect has provided us with faulty renderings. the first time was with the 311 renderings. it turns out we are not the opblg ones with concerns about this project. it has undergone 4 residential design team reviews which have expressed concerns about the mass and scale of the project and made numerous requests for changes. however it appears every time the planning department requests a change, say x, the sponsoring team only gives them part of x: rdt asks for an 11-foot reduction yet what went out was only a 4 foot reduction and even now only the top floor has an 11 foot reduction. they were askd for a 5 foot yet only

gave 3 feet. they only gave 13 feet to the opaque outier shell. the design review asks for a front set back which was partially granted and although the rdt agreed to this it demonstrates an on h*f going pattern of the sponsor not complying with the recommendations. we are not trying to stop this project rxz we are trying to reshape it in a way that better fits with the neighborhood. what we are asking for as outlined in our letter is the following: a 3 foot reduction in height, a 7 foot reduction in depth, an increase in the set backs on both the front and rear, and now it should be mentioned that the sponsor has said they cannot accommodate the 3 foot reduction in depth because it isn't simply renovation, they must stick with the existing elevations for the first and second floors

and therefore permit them to only 7 foot ceilingings but there is not true because this is a rear foot addition where the floor levels can be different. so they can accommodate this 3-foot reduction in height we are asking them for and it should be noted that currently the residence has 8 foot ceilings on the second floor. second, it is not just the 7dr filings that want a reduction, it is also the neighbors on seward and the eureka valley neighborhood association which has also voiced opposition to this project. i will now devote the remaining time to the other dr filers. >> good afternoon, my name is

nancy romamercy and i have been a home owner in the neighborhood for the last 13 years. the dl filers embrace positive change but believe the proposed scope of work at 4546 represents an extraordinary design *r dpuer tour from the design guidelines. why is this? i want to show an exhibit here on the projector. all right, so, if you take a look at the site plan, this is an aerial photo --. >> you need to speak in the microphone for the record to be complete. >> sorry. all right, this is an aerial photo but if you take a look at the site plan, the lot extends 116 feet in depth. and this is from this portion from this line here all the way to the front of the house, this actually includes a good

portion of the alley, there's a private alley that runs behind here and this is a turn around space for vehicles and also provides an easement for the two adjacent homes. so the true buildable portion of the lot, if you extract out this alley space is 93 feet, not the full 100 feet that's used for all the calculations. it's an unusual situation, admittedly, and all the other lots along thorpe lane do not include the alley so any open space that typically is found in any of these homes is actually in the buildable lot itself usually between the garage and the home. if you look at the -- i'm going to put another exhibit on here, this is difficult to do because it's large, but this is the proposed section looking east. and essentially it runs

from the sidewalk all the way to the back of the garage and that is the full 97 foot 3 inches. so what we're talking about is essentially 100 percent coverage of the buildable area of the lot. and this is to accommodate a larger home, a garage, a workshop, et cetera. so if you even took the full 116 foot depth that the lot represents, it would only leave 16 percent for the rear yard open space, which is basically just the alley itself. we do not believe this variance application meets the 5 required findings under planning code section 305. specifically, there is no hardship or practical difficulty that justifies essentially 100 percent lot coverage or even if you consider the ally the unbuildable portion. lot,

that's 84 percent coverage. no other home in this neighborhood has or has ever proposed the mass and scale of this project such that finding no. 3 could not be met and last we believe the variance should not be approved unless there is a reduction in the main area to accommodate sufficient rear yard building space so we do not create a detrimental precedent for the neighborhood. thank you for your time. >> hello, good afternoon, commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. my name is james clamerty, i live at 45 219th street. i am one of 7dr filers who believe the sign of this design is just too large for this location. i will show how the design will be out of scale for the lot, it will cause a walling in effect of lampson lane and it will forever block one of the nicest public views along our block,

that of rocky mountain, now called corona heights and the historic landmark no. 80 on douglas street just one-half block away. let me tell you i know this neighborhood. i was born at children's hospital in 52 and i grew up in this house and attended college from this house, so i know this neighborhood. in 77 i moved back with my wife, also a native. my parents moved in, we raised our two kids here, they went to neighborhood public schools so i know this neighborhood and i know there have been 6 or 8 recent remodel projects along our block that have helped the neighborhood by upgrading older properties, adding additional living space and modernizing these homes. this has undoubtedly benefited the neighborhood by causing real estate values to appreciate and this is good for everyone, although some of the designs are rather sterile, all of the previous designs were done to mafrp the block scale and character and while sometimes tripling the living

area, none of these projects added new floors above existing levels. don't get me wrong, i'm not against development or having a third level, but because of the radical change in height and depth of the current design, this project is not out of scale for the block, it is especially out of scale for a block facing lampson lane. all we are asking for is a 3-foot reduction in height so what is so important about lampson lane? if you've ever been there you would have seen some of the nicest public views, this is looking down lampson lane, we've got corona heights, what i called rocky mountain growing up. if we have this project we will essentially lose that view from the top of lampson lane there at 19th. another view is of knobby park's fall right this is

from further down lampson lane, this is what you will see when that property is built. finally, the current size will exceed the relative height above grade midpoint of the uphill house across lampson lane by 3 feet, even though the subject property is substantially downhill of it and will reach about the same absolute height. for these reasons and the previously presented concerns i respectfully request that the planning department accept the dr thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is dr. linda tucker and i live directly across the street from 4546 19th street. i moved to san francisco over 30 years ago from new york city but grew up in a very small town where

there was lots of greenery and free space. san francisco immediately felt like the best of both worlds and i never looked back. what i am beginning to feel is something different. i fell in love with the neighborhood feel and the expansiveness that our city had. each neighborhood seemed to have an individual personality. unfortunately, what i fell in love with is beginning to disappear and what is happening --. >> ma'am, i'm sorry but the dr requested time is up. that's 15 minutes. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. so now speakers in favor of the dr there are any speakers in favor of the dr who are not --. >> that are not part of the dr requesting team? >> speakers who are opposed to

the project. >> hello, thank you for this opportunity to speak and i'd like to thank michael smith for acknowledging my letter that i sent to him. my name is gary narimore, i have lived in san francisco, worked in san francisco for 4 years. i have lived in this neighborhood for 20 years. i have walked lampson lane and all the blocks around my neighborhood almost daily, i have enjoyed watching construction and remodels in the neighborhood and was pleasantly surprised and pleased with the tastefulness that's been done to date. when i saw the scope of this project and this huge box that was going to replace what is currently there, it was just unimaginable to me. i'm not

objecting to the addition of a second unit, i think i'm all for -- i'm not anti-growth, i think development there is reasonable, but the current scope and size of this thing and the footprint is just beyond my imagination and i respectfully request that as proposed this be denied. thank you. >> thank you. any further speakers? >> good evening, commissioners, my name is jued igt lamb, i am speaking for the eureka valley association planning and land use committee. we have an interest in this project, we are quite concerned about preserving the small scale family nature of the eureka valley hill side and this is an example of what is happening kind of piecemeal in

eureka valley where projects that are out of scale with the neighborhood, with the context, are proposed. and we have managed to get some scale back and we certainly hope you are going to scale this one back as well. i notice this is put before you as an abbreviated dr, that is very hard for me to understand. you can see how much concern there is in the neighborhood about this. we do consider it to be exceptional, extraordinary and we think it's emblematic of what's happening and we would like you to weigh in on this, we would like you to take dr and weigh in and scale this project back. thank you very much. >> thank you. any further speakers? >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is david myer, i live at 4565 19th

street and i agree with all the dr requesters and what they have said and i wanted to add one more observation of my own about the proposal. the sponsor and the planning department have noted a second dwelling unit is being added in this expansion. since we are in dire need of additional housing in the city, one might perhaps be inclined to gifr the sponsor a break on size. however, i question whether this is a genuine attempt to introduce quality housing. as the second dwelling consists of a basement studio space which the architect claims is 656 square feet, already quite small, but upon measuring the actual square footage from their drawings, one finds that it consists of only 570 square feet and the area i am speaking of is outlined in red here.

the unit is separated from the main unit only by a pocket door, the only natural light is a sliding glass door which looks on to a path to be used as a rear entrance to the main unit and to the deck over the garage occupied by the residents of the main unit. i support second units in our rh2 district, but i wonder whether this space will ever be used as a second unit. it appears much more similar to the large media room associated with the unit upstairs. thank you. >> thank you. additional speakers in support of the dr okay, seeing none, project

sponsor. >> good afternoon, my name is carolyn powell and i am the property owner. first i would like to thank the commissioners for the opportunity to speak today. i'd also like to thank michael smith and others in the planning department for investing a significant amount of resources into getting us prepared to be here today. my primary goals in purchasing the house at 4546 19th street were first to stay close to the neighbors who have become a part of my family. i have lived in this neighborhood, specifically in a house diagonally behind the subject property, for 17 years. i have looked at this home out my rear window for the past 17 years. if we could have the slides, thank you. this is the neighborhood and the subject property is the first one after the canadian flag and you can see multiple styles of architectural nature within the neighborhood. my view from my rear window that

i've been looking at for the past 17 years, if i could have the overhead projector on -- overhead projector, please -- has given me the opportunity to watch 4 houses in a row be developed behind my home. these 4 houses right along here have all been developed in the past several years and you can see the pattern of large homes all the way up the street. the subject property is this small home right here. i originally set out to remodel the home that i currently live in on castelli avenue. that home is 100 years old now, it's an edwardan arts and crafts home, it still has original cove ceilings, lagt and plaster, stained glad exterior and i did not have the heart to tear the pages out of

this 100 year old book, as well as one of the city planners who was working with us at the time wisely suggested that we reevaluate the project. i was so pleased when i was able to buy the run-down home diagonally behind me based on the development of the next 4 houses up the street i believed i had a road map to follow. we met with architects and the planning department and found an excellent opportunity to improve a distressed property. thus began our journey that led us to today. the first people i met with were the neighbors on either side. i wanted to understand their concerns and worked to minimize the impact of my project. jackie, who had lived 80 homes in the house to the east expressed appreciation for the set back on her side which would provide light in afternoons. i expected the canadian kaupbs consulate

would have concerns about the views. i commissioned solar studies -- where am i -- window studies, view studies from multiple angles, lighting studies, as many study sz as were asked for we did because i was trying to address the concerns of my neighbors. i love my neighborhood, i care about my neighbors and that's why i have worked so hard to address their concerns and stay in this neighborhood. i'm not trying to create waves, i'm not trying to create a mcmansion, i'm try to go create a home that fits within the size and scale of the neighborhood and keeps these neighbors that i want to stay living by happy. i'd like to now introduce my team to present the rest of the project. . >> thank you, carolyn, jeremy paul on behalf of the project sponsor. i want to quickly run down through some of the

residential design guidelines issues. if we can go to the computer please i want to talk to you about this request for discretionary review. this is a photograph taken from bruno's window showing his view towards downtown and to the east. you see two of the houses that were recently redone and expanded directly across the street from him and the canadian consulate which was also subject to a significant expansion and remodel several years ago. this is a rendering of the new house as it will appear from bruno's window. it is at the sidewalk, it is to the scale of the neighborhood, and it fits within the context of what the residential design guidelines expects of a corner lot. now, this is a corner property and the variance was granted to the canadian consulate for their expansion to the rear considering it a corner lot as well. and it's important to

view it in context of a corner lot. the green diamond is carolyn's current property, the square is this house on lampson lane. the residential design guidelines which you are very familiar with suggesting emphasis of development on corner properties so this is the house on the opposite corner of the block. this is the quintessential corner house development , this is knobby parks folly, this is the corner of 19 *lt and douglas. so the corner lots are intended to be emphasized and the visual character of the block is intended to be followed. now, this is what the residential design guidelines shows as a mixed visual character and you can see going up the block that we have an

almost picture-perfect example of a mixed visual character. the highest house up the block, the one that's about 45 feet at the flat roof point, that is one of the dr requesters that looks directly across us. this is back to that perspective. so the question is, does this project meet the requirements necessary to take dr i think not. the addition is code complying, the portion of the project that requires a variance is essentially underneath the grade and will create more open space when this project is done than exists currently. all up the block you can see the development up to 4th lane, that these houses going all the way up on 19th street have developed their rear yards in such a way that there's very

little usable open space and if you'll take a look at the plans before you, you'll see a project that really contributes to usable open space on this property. the yellow house in the center is the canadian consulate, the small gray house next to it is the existing property on the other side of lampson. this photograph is taken from carolyn's back window, so this is what she sees looking out of her house now. and, again, the canadian consulate and the houses going up the block. you see this is a well-established pattern of development following the broader neighborhood context guidelines suggested by the residential design guidelines. and this is an illustration intended to show the relative floor area ratios of the houses, show that this is not a new high point of massivity in

any sense. we're the farthest property to the right showing that we are right in the middle as far as the size goes, the three houses up. there's a house that is several hundred square feet larger than this and they all open up on to lampson and thorpe at the rear and all have a garage at the rear. i'm going to let, give the rest of this time to the project architect who can tell you a bit more of the house, a bit more of the story of the way this was designed, but i think you'll find this is a very well designed project that is in context with the property and addresses the residential design guidelines. >> hi, thank you for your time, my name is ian reed, i'm the project architect for the house at 4546 19th street and i'd like to talk about the process we went through leading up to the final project. it was an over two-year project,

rdt with the neighbors and real study of the neighborhood context. this is a brief narrative of the designer vision we went through showing day one up through where we reside today and you can see there's been a great many renditions. starting about halfway through that yard you can see where we started working with the rdt and that was really a moment where we were able to approach them and have a good dialogue about what they deemed appropriate for the neighborhood and what concerns we could take into account to make sure we built with as much, as light a hand as possible. ultimately, i'll just run true some slides and show you where we have arrived with the house's two-story feature at the front, maintaining recessed entry way at the front, trying to minimize the impact of a third floor while not completely reducing it, a rear yard that's sympathetic to lampson lane, also creates flat outdoor space for the owner. wie also looked at massing and materials and ea