you walked through that building that is a fun of your building -- in front of your building? okay. is there any other public comment? >> good evening. i am representing the russian hill neighbors. we have been following this project for some time. everyone commented on the fact that it has been a process. we have had a presentation of the design. almost unanimously all of our

directors were very much in favor of the project and we came and spoke about that at a hearing. the main things that we were in sit -- interested in was that this seems to be a viable project. no one has mentioned the fact that this is a lot that has been an eyesore for quite some time. this is a dangerous situation and something that the neighbors would really like to see. we like the fact that this was a viable project and we felt that the scale and design was the purpose of and compatible. when we came to the first hearing and we heard the concerns, we actually went to do some work due diligence. we went to interview some more people come not i spoke to the owner of the property to the

east, members of the executive committee. we toward the property and there were several other meetings. we have been in support during the whole process and there has been nothing that has been raised that has caused us to change our mind. i am here to reiterate our support for this project moving ahead. i would hope that you would deny the appeal. >> i wondered if you know more about the size or range of houses in terms of square footage in the neighborhood. >> we have looked at the aerial photos. i cannot tell you that i know the square-foot it's, i only know what i have been told that i know that there is some discrepancy in those figures.

i probably cannot add to that. it is very clear and i think to those of us and the board, we continue to support this because there is a pattern and this project seems to be in that pattern of having a building in the front and a building in the rear with the open space in the middle and there seems to have been quite a bit of care taken by the project sponsor and the architect to be sensitive to those patterns that exist in the neighborhood and at least to the scale, but what we have seen in this line has looked very much compatible to us. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm looking at the bird's-eye view on the project sponsors

submission. >> the president of the russian hill association went to the side and i have not. i have spoken and then some interviews but i have not personally been there. >> i have been there but i did not walk all the way through like they did. >> >> i don't have a sense of the relative high. is this project, is this higher than the one directly adjacent to it? >> my understanding is that this is not higher.

>> is there any other public comment? >> i have been on this case for 13 years, since 1997. in 1998, we settled with the project sponsor and is

architect. initially, they thought of this and then they thought that. they had them both in control during the planning commission hearing. there was a variance, here is the record from the case report but there is no decision letter. i've requested it twice and it cannot be found. when staff was asked for the various decision letter 41269, they could not find that either. they finally produced it. in the decision, it refers to the settlement. unlike 1269 use entitlements have allegedly expired, this came to fruition which was sold

and final vote by the department of building inspection. those of the same for both properties. this will undo that variants without a public notice, without a hearing. i do not believe that that is legal. the reason that the building was set back and that the agreement was reached was that we were trying to save the garden. this garden changes the character of this neighborhood and this bill is one of gardens and the front and buildings of the top. there was a streak need -- there in 1860. it was only later that a frontal this 50 killed. -- it was only later that the

front of buildings were built. this is a story lower than what they're doing. we had a small house and our agreement, that was all. mr. sanchez said it was only about the access, it was about the porch. this was part of the relationship. the three properties were all owned by the same family. the whole reason for pushing that development and to the back of the lot, even at the sacrifice of the southwestern light was to retain their relationship between the three buildings.

the >> can you walk us through which is which? >> this is 1271. they walked up to the building and then there was an opening in the wall that they continued to climb. >> what year was this picture taken? >> this was taken in 1997 when the applications were first made. one would walk up here through this wall and then on up and as someone walked up the stair, you had to go around the porch. >> that is the same porch. >> i'm looking at the east side

of the historic building and i'm standing on a lot of 1216. >> what is the white building? >> this was an addition to the back of the original building. >> that looks very old to me. >> all of the work was done -- this was actually moved here in 1915. this was probably added in the 20's. this was a connection between the front and rear. >> ok. >> i would like to go to the

exhibit. to the right a little bit. >> they are extending that vertically a whole story.

>> that is higher than the one next to it. >> they are not level. >> which one is lower. >> how much lower? >> i am not the architect, i cannot tell you. >> i believe the architect is here.

>> and don't do it again. >> can i ask a question?

>> i happen to another square footage because i developed it. there are always two stories on the back. most of them are 50% or less. as far as coverage goes, they are covering about 75% of the

plot. >> you are restricted in your development. do you want to elaborate? >> your building is a historic building. this is in their rear lot said. what i want to do is expand the building. the choice of is given by the zoning administrator was that we can count on the building -- tear up the building. the other requirement.

>> we have had four to five hours of hearings on this. we have had four hours to discuss this. the planning commission has the strong as prosecutors and they asked the toughest questions. after four or five hours of

total testimony where the commissioners had larry investigate the problems that we are seeing, the h p c had its staff investigate. the neighborhood association sent a committee out to investigate what of the appellants are saying and to figure out how much true there is. the result was a 5-0 vote on the planning commission. a 7-0 vote in the historic preservation commission. that was to say that this demolition permit is defined and the new proposal is within a potential historic district. >> i am the project architect. i would like to answer three of your questions. the first is exhibit d here. this is about three above the roof of the existing building.

we created a chart to study the pattern of development in the area. we used similar methods to get our numbers including examining aerial photographs, measuring the footprints of the building. , like to address the sunlight. as you can see from this picture, there are a jumble of buildings and a very complex to biography. what we try to depress our rigid as much as possible in order to not a clue to their rear yard.

we did a simple sunlight steady. we looked at the equinoxes times and we found that there will be a few days when our building will put a shadow on the rear yards in question and there is a couple of days of the year when the removal of the cottage will allow some light that does not exist now. an accurate depiction of what would really happen is that it does not exist. >> i have a question about the photographs. can you describe where the subject property lot is and what direction we are looking at? >> we are looking south and the three buildings that are up hill that have cottages or structures behind this.

what is next to it was developed in the 90's by the owners of the property. it is this area right in here. >> this area was developed on the earlier variants. is that with a pencil list? >> that one was brought forward and raised up. >> no. it was not brought forward but it was raised. then the building i just pointed to is behind that. >> ok. thank you.

>> i don't really have much more than add other than that the findings have been met here and the situation is and not given the conditions of in it and the existing pattern of development which justifies the variants and we have reviewed matters as stated by the permit holders. they have found this project to be compliant as well. i'm available to answer any questions. >> i just have one question following up on some things that the architect stated about this variance, did you know what he was talking about? >> well, i think the question here was what conditions are or

were during the 1998 assurances the -- variances. we have only seen one for the subject property. i think that that would be really irrelevant. i did not see anything in there that stated that this had to apply or maintain the opening. one could argue that they had to have that opening by reference to the other plans. the zoning administrator and the planning commission said they would it be the one tune all and avoid any previous conditions and they have done so conditionally. there is an argument which has expired because they did not have the building permits. they never built the homes. they did to the retaining walls.

they did not actually stop construction. >> what we have here is that there was a requirement to guarantee some access. i think that that is a moot point. access to the subject property is provided. the commission has found the appropriate design and that is what they approved. >> of imagine that there can be accessed to the light. can you put this back up please? >> so, looking at of the building next door, the original

building is that one in the front and then there is the gap and that is the open space with the porch that we saw the photographs for. >> what we saw as the landing and the stairs, these are actually on the subject property. >> they were back in that area where the gap is. >> they were on 1269, you would walk into 1271 and turned and walked on to the adjacent property. that is the landing and those stairs which were demolished maybe 10 years ago. if you put those strides back up, there is the gap and there is a separate building behind. that is the one we just saw a

photograph of. that one was built under the various is that were granted a couple of years ago. >> i believe that is the case. that is my understanding of the project. >> we look to them before which shows --f shows 98. i don't think that there is a date on this. one could imagine that that new construction in the rear to have been approved with a various because that gap was open to the subject property.

one could imagine that was part of the deal and the conditions that were imposed now, it is your argument that this is over and done with, we're looking at a new project. i just wonder what does that mean for us because many times we up hold permits with conditions but it seems like you are suggesting that those conditions can be tossed out to in the future. >> that depends on the body and the process. in this case, the planning commission invoked these conditions. they heard a new project and approve this without any conditions. the real question was in regards to the condition, it was my understanding that it was a matter of access to how the

project was designed. previously, there was no access from 1269 to the street. you would walk into the property, they would use those stairs. what had been a condition of approval was that this opening remained and that there was an easement on 1271 that they would maintain access and maintain use at the front of the stairs. >> i will stop you right there. the previous owners estimated that area and demolished that staircase in that historic porch and what not. then what happens. >> if they were to pursue the previously approved project, then those would have been rebuilt and there would have

been access there. >> the demolition of those was not under consideration. they were meant to stay put. >> there was access through an easement. i don't know if it was specified that any existing stairs must retain. >> will we rebuild them? >> access would be provided and it did not specify how that would be divided and whether or not desisting stairs would be contained. >> you have answered my question. thank you. >> i think that this board asks very difficult questions. >> mr. sanchez, we are not done yet. the project as presented in these documents reflects exactly the design presented for

the variants. >> this has been presented by the permit-holding and what was approved during the various application. i believe that is the case. >> the matter submitted. >> the issue of the variance and the five criteria i believe are met. i've not felt that way