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 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 he