our church collections are never enough to meet our operating costs. we don't have adequate fund to preserve a large building such large projects like window restoration. as windows fail our only option we'll cover them with plywood and perhaps to insert a clear glass. this indeed would be a traffic loss. in order to continue it's social outreach programs we need our support. we can't do it without a new source of if you happened and our ability to sell tdr would go

a long way to sustain the windows. thank you very much for your time >> thank you okay opening it up for public comment. >> patricia. years ago when let's tear down the church, i ended up in utah with the homes trust to preserve those buildings. i preceded to come back to san francisco and go through all the catholic churches and i was in st. bonding if his i noticed a little girl sitting in the front by herself and i asked her where her mother was they are a couple of doors down i come into her everyday because it's about how far and safe. that's why st. bonding if his

and the windows need to be saved >> thank you. any public comment on this item? > >> nevertheless to say i know this is a great church whatever they want give them it. i personally was married there my background was italian and my husband was german they also worked at st. bonding if his and we teaspoon this tradition the

same family line did the plastically here for the city hall. so we're all connected and have to work together no matter what. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> move to approve. >> sorry. commissioner sugaya >> yeah. i think as one who comes from historic preservation background the tdr program is one to assist the nonprofit. there are some tax credit programs but they're only available to commercial families and make money think buildings

so those are not available there's a way to do it but it's tricky and there's other programs but this is one that has an immediate effect and the building that my office is in the owner of the building sold tdred. i'm pleased to support the motion >> commissioner moore. >> i can't help saying i wish we would have found some innovative tools. commissioners there's a motion moved and seconded to adapt in. commissioner borden >> commissioner hillis arrest

commissioner moore commissioner sugaya and commissioner wu. >> that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places you on item 17. at 1700 my own street. please not excuse me. that on november 7, 2013, the project sponsor asked the project to be continued and it was super is seated to january 2, 0014, with a vote of 3. commissioners the project sponsor is requesting that item be continued indefinitely

>> (calling names). >> and this is any public comment? only on the matter of continuance that's only what we're discussing first >> thank you. i'm candice mckenzie you've received a letter from me asking you to reject at&ts project. and requested an approval of the union association representing the cal association and other associations independent community members including from the nearby sherman school. the design element of spur recks

the unsuitability as is making could site 2 1/2 years ago now, it's still unsuitable that were it can't be transferred to another site. this commission approved those to deny the application. i ask you what further evidence does this commission need to finalize the application for this suit >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i'm deborah. we would like to be done about 17 union street. we request that you deny the application for the cellular

site the know are building is not appropriate. at the last minute at&t is requesting an indefinite continuance. if the path is a continuance we don't understand. the mraks was gracious in let me eliciting them have a continuance for the last meeting. it's now appropriate to deny their application. we all need to a move open to our jobs and other prongs we've worked diligently here's my file on trying to work with them. at&t has not demonstrated working with us. time to move on with more time the building wouldn't be any more suitable it is and is the wrong building for this site

ambassador you i trust you'll do what you need to do for us to be finished. thank you >> good afternoon commissioners islam lawrence - i am the vice president of the union station. i come to you to ask to move on. i've heard from the commissioner how they felt about the project and it didn't sound favorable. i talked to at&t they were going to come and talk to us. i waited two most and i heard from them a few minutes ago and they want to move inform 17

hundred address. what can you tell us about this at least confidentially it's already a microcould site now they're to add sites but why do we have to come down here knowing that 17 hundred is for more viable they've moved on 18 hundred can't we see or is that 17 hundred a gun otherwise we've got to keep coming down here. if you're going to continue it something we can keep an eye on so it doesn't fall without us

recognizing it. thank you >> thank you. >> hello, again. i was going to talk about the request to deny the application but as for the indefinitely continuance i believe it goes right along with at&ts approach from the beginning and that's been at&t only being could active when they have to be. i appreciate and understand their strategy. and hedging their bets against the next proposed site but there should be time limits in regards to what they're requesting. thank you

>> thank you. >> patricia. in all the previous at&t cases i've been on its russia rupture now they're losing one let's do it our way. the continuance should be denied and you should make a decision and let's get on with it. i'm tired of the double standard. we don't get continuance i know i don't for this. continuances and i think at&t should be treated like the rest of us. thank you >> thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner hillis >> maybe we could get clarity of the issue of the continuance and why the project sponsor wants to talk about what's the

status and why the continuance first - >> the project sponsor is requesting a continuance if it's at the indefinite continuance so the newspapers and the new 90s to the public. an application was submitted for a new use continuance for a wisely facility on 18 hundred street we're currently elevating that. >> so it sound like they don't intend to pursue this site. >> if 18 hundred union was approved that 17 hundred union would be a site they'll continue to pursue. >> it's a little bit awkward the way we're doing it. >> i do want to say the

difference is if you gave them another date they won't have to renotice but it's like the project is starting all over again like the posting and all that stuff. when he continue items to a specific date they don't have to do the same noticing so you won't know things going on in the neighborhood. it make sense to do an indefinite continuance so there are things we can skip >> i could be supportive of a motion to continue i'm not sure what the commissioners think with the focus on 18 union. >> commissioner moore.

>> it is a little bit xhufg to understand the real 81 intent. i heard they're looking the building that looks for suitable and how their moving forward to keep the doors open is a little bit harder for all of us here. i would have liked to see them move on without the fear there will be some other backdoor open so we have extensive lengths for changes and alternatives for the 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 the