nature of the building is hard to do. on the other hand, i think particle commissioner hillis said when this building is a no go. it's a little bit harder to understand why it says undefinite continuance. so that's my practical interpretation of what i'm seeing >> i was going to agree. looking back over the votes i wouldn't replacement i vote a disrespect way but eave gone through this we pulled it off and continued it. >> there was - >> consistent why don't we move on. >> through the chair one of the

continuances was the straw hat to redesign the facility so we worked and came up with a dive design and the facade was determined by the staff not to be suitable either. >> one - part of the problem in the process we gave a different direction the first time and we made it on the first pass we motivate sound like there was a solution and there wasn't. we had an indefinite continuance but if it comes back that way it's clear >> commissioners, if i may clarify something because it seems like we are going to be missing on some of the votes for clarity. a motion to continue is a procedural matter only thomas a.

swift's electric rifle take a minority for 3 votes to continue the matter. to approve e.r. disapprove the - to adapt it to approve or disapprove will take 4 vote if neither of those happen the project is disapproved because the application before you fails. and it just gets disapproved without daumentd a formal motion it just fails you >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i think the original continuances were all to support at&t to the extent there's

certain buildings require more attention or are in the end need nor tension. so actually this didn't work which speaks somehow to the difficulty of adapting particular kind of building to the technology. we were all snaemly saying find alternative sites and now in a way that makes it easier toro it us to close the other chapter. and this is still in full and clear support of the commission for at at but basically as far as i'm concerned i've come to a

deed end on wanting to discuss this building >> the only reason i asked for the approach if the project wants to be renoticed we put it on consent calendar for denial so you don't have to top anybody's time. and doesn't you tell us in any predicament let's say because we were talking about woirls antennas i'd rather not be running awe foul over that >> on the matter of continuance is there a second. >> i didn't hear a motion. >> that was a motion i guess. i'll make a motion for an

indefinite continuance >> second. >> so commissioners there's a moved and seconded for indefinite continuance with the condition it should is return be places on consent for disapproval. >> commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya >> can we actually add that last part into the motion legally. >> probably not. >> i don't see why not. >> their preconditioning. >> i don't want to get us into trouble for something that's illegal and -

>> i suppose you wouldn't have to include that because there's a motion of intent that will bring it back to you kwosh or for a recommendation for disapproval and the motion as such so maybe we should attack that portion. >> whatever i want it to be clear to the public we're not trying to drag people back down. >> and it comes back with the same motion as today. >> there's been a full appearing on the matter it would have to be renotices and reposted and - so with that clarification is the second okay.

i'll retake the vote. the motion is only to continue the matter indefinitely. commissioner borden. commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. commissioner sugaya and commissioner chair wu it passes 3 to 2 with commissioner johnck and commissioner moore voting against. that places you under our discretionary review calendar we'll move to items a and b. for 45, 46, 19 street for discretionary review and the zoning administrator will talk about the variance. i want to make everyone aware because of our current rule changes and this is sort of a

unique situation with 7 dr requesters we've been discussing with the dr requesters that their time limit is 17 minutes total and the project sponsor will have 10 minutes and each side will have a 10 minute rebuttal. good afternoon, commissioners michael with the planning staff. this is for the project on the eureka neighborhood between douglas street. a few house keeping issues. on page 2 of the report that's a reference to the 45 hundred block of u correcting reck street, however, it's 19th street. no petition was submit for or against this project and the neighborhood group e bp a that

was opted to the project should be the eureka valley association. and one of the dr requesters nancy residence at the 19th street is located west of the subject property. on page 3 charring necessarily is a representative for the county i council at 4552 street not the occupants and the parcel map on the overheads is on clover head and 19th street it should be on the corner of 19th street. the correct property is right

here. and lastly there are 7 drs requesters. fortunately, this was one that was different and i'm forwarding i another dr application it's last year in inspection to the size and the height of the building, however, it also has a concern about the loss of affordability through the de facto to have the building and even though general plan. already so that concludes the housekeeping issues. i do lighten the project proposes a significantly alternated building and adding a

dwelling unit developed at the top of the garage with a roof desk open space that would connect the toggle the rear lot. the connection would be located partially below grade and add 9 and a half feet to the height of the building and square footage. the primary dwelling will have 29 hundred square feet in total after the project and there will be a secondary unit. the project requires a rear yard desk between the structures. and the project was originally noticed to the public as a project that is paramount to the

demolition. once again referring to the overhead. i want to show you the variance here. i'm using the site elevation and the rear yard is running along the back a side of the rear yard variants north of that i guess. so everything back here so there's development here on, on the garage. the dr is requested by 9 neighborhood in the present area. they find is out of scale they don't support of the variance to extend favorite on the lot. to address their concerns they want the top floor set back 25 feet and the rear of the

building to the top garage of the lot. the dr requesters are concerned about the loss of affordability. since the materials were released we've received 11 letters of support within the immediate area and two letters in opposition. the department is recommending don't take the dr and approve it as proposed. the feel the scale and massing of the building are in context with the rest of the block. it remains as a two-story building approximately 13 feet to the3 4 f1

. >> 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