didn't want to bend on was it preserved to be a mistake that made on the same residential guidelines about 10 years before the design guidelines didn't change they told us their interpretation of them has changed that's the reason they felt they this or had to change hair mind not the r d t but the planners rdt didn't see exist in 2003 they were sympathetic but supposed to hold did line we are happy the commission didn't agree and happy to much support i wanted to thank the dozens of folks and the letters of support the people that called the planning commission a long time advocate additional a teacher wrote a

letter and so has former jane and margaret head of the family and child serviced was appalled moving on a number of concessions over 10 you can look at page 12 in my briefly you'll go over a few to create less shadow the upper floor the appellant has been set back 6 feet plus and windows on that side have been made clearly with fills of 6 feet home was reduced by 3 feet several years ago in negotiation and more recently rutsz under 14 inches move forward 2 feet and move forward 3 foot before the commission took action

overwhelmingly our clients wanted the second-story not 80 moved at all the appellant minded they were 13 and ended up with 5 it's a reasonable compromise you'll hear why much more if any will cost a lot of money when mr. shapz talks to you there's no rear yard open space in the rear the blocks come together you could point your fingers at a acute angle the open space you're looking at it is now there are 4 homelands on 24 by one hundred rear lots and not coming at strange understandably not a open space in the mid enclosing block the zoning administrator said in

2003 quote the exposed building will not impede the enjoyment of surrounding property and also quote grant the rear yard variants is necessary for the subject property to expand in a manner consisted about and permitted on 09 properties in the immediate neighborhood and, of course, if in your belief now on the overhead with the charts variances in the area for many, many years now i'm going to show you a picture periodic them what a neighbor sees from across the street were the proposals upgraded by paeltsd today to be built and it may be a foot off but basically, what they'll see that the top of a building

and which will kind of overwhelming an old deal it congressional in the neighborhood on the overhead another perception with the clients are promoting and as you can see this if i may move it this large additional height will not be seen what will be seen is that ridge continuing back for most of the distance historic preservation consultant mr. himself will look as it is pushed you're seeing that there his opinion that will not be compliant with the secretary of interior guidelines and that

will cause a lot more environmental review and the staff indicated much more environmental review and it makes that more will the clerk please that for the historic preservation commission a target eir but nevertheless an e.r. for the impacts on a 1893 cottage is very possible here one more minute i'll bring up mr. santos what occurred at the planning commission the following our clients middle-aged made a 3 feet concession about a most before the hearing it could go forward an additional feet but it was not enough to present a huge huge economic problem and they agreed to it we're sorry that

the appellants haven't felt the dozen compromises and the many made in the weeks before the commission and those talked about since have not been acceptable to them and we just hope this great compromises that the planning commission coming up came up with is something we can go forward on. >> mr. sanchez. >> how do you reconcile the fact - well, how do you reconcile their concerns that light is going to be cut off and privacy how do you reconcile that with what you propose to do. >> well, we all live in the city and we all make a choose a lot of things about living in a dense environment we hear noise

next door and people's light and privacy can be incremental decreases people will not want to move into a portion of a city with not big rear yard we all make compromises i've made them and people around me i don't appeal anything else god knows i'd be in trouble the fact is that we all have to share the burden of systems coping ourselves in a city where we have children and families we've made a lot of compromises there's no situation that the clients can favored that keeps every bit of light that the neighbor has privacy is not an issue we've dealt with that and

are they going to see a little bit leisure not sure that answers our question if you want to talk about that in terms of numbers of foot and degrees of light i'm afraid we haven't done a light and shadow study to bring it down to a scientific level. >> have you taken a look at the cost of implementing some of they're proposed changes. >> yeah. i wasn't qualified i had mr. rupert who district attorney a lot of architect to take into account it and he'll be here right now if you wish he's got about 4 minutes. >> yes. >> thanks.

>> commissioners i'm santos the engineer for the project as we all engineers speak with drawings i've prepared a drawings to mr. pacheco for distribution to the commissioners. >> would you see them on the overhead. >> sure. >> point of order may we get a copy. >> sure, yes. >> oh boy i don't see anything. >> engineer for the project okay. it's not just my eyes we were asked by this project sponsor to do a structural analysis and we, of course,

prior to making my recommendations we decided to take the steps that are normally recommended with the department of building inspection it is called a preapplication meeting you go to the department and talk to a structuralier of the city and basically ask questions and get xhoifrments for a cost effective instructor we did that and talked to mr. jeff from the department 6 inspects we have a signed letter of preapplication meeting basically confirming and kruger with the analysis we're making every structural engineer in the city will delusional uh-huh tell you the stimuli pilot seismic upgrade will rely on the structural elements or new elements that's not trigger or engage some of the old

seeksdz in this case the horizon extension was sitting down easier to implement we don't have to gage the existing walls or modify some of the elements particularly in the front of the building and important importantly utilities a series of structural extremely framed that unfortunately will most likely eliminate the option of being able to stay in the house awhile you're doing the construction work the proposal we have will allow the project sponsor to remain in the how did that while your critiquing this so they'll not be forced into having to find xhoomgsdz during the construction phase it would be lengthy maybe 6 to 9 months to implement that's an added

cost horizon vision we're proposing is an edition that can be obviously implemented in a less efficient manner and the cost analysis we have provided to you it is actually acquit a discrepancy between trying to put something in front of a building in other words closer to the street to force to have a new floor diagram this house was built in 1903 we'll have to create a floor that applies taking floors and is significant impact so their proposal that we are presenting to you is acceptable and compatible with the modest edition an 8 hundred

square feet home we're proposing 4 hundred for a total of 12 hundred square feet so commissioners, of course, i'm here to answer any questions and more than happy to interact with the appellants and the structural engineer if you think that's a step that will lead us towards a possible resolution thank you. >> have you taken a look at what at the proposals that i asked about in the cost? >> yeah. >> yeah. and we have. >> and would some of the proposals be implemented with a

little cost or are they a resemble alternative. >> well, i mentioned to you anything that forces pushing us towards the street will trigger and full-size change. >> not all the proposals right. >> no obviously some good use towards the street the more expensive the cost will be. >> mr. santos any structural upgrades to the current and existing this in the connection. >> only at the enter face between the old and new that will be shared that i itself existing margin overlook work there will be some voluntary seismic work on the ground floor i recommended that to my client with the foungdz we live in a

seismic zone i recommended some strapping and bolting some of the areas. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> good evening scott sanchez planning staff i think some of the history of the project has been acted this is an rh2 with the zoning district the parcel maps have been revised because of the shape and size and configuration also topographic it is a angle lot up and above or higher than the appellants protein as well as towards the rear this property plays into it

the previous variance that authorized a larger envelope than what we have before you today that was never pursued a building permit that was received to start construction so that has expired and within the project was resubmitted we have a different process for reviewing the residential guidelines with the grade level consistent and we have concerns about the variants one of the things i'll note the planned that reflected the commission and my decision son the variants i don't think that which is put on this screen by the appellant it can be found in exhibit d of the permit holders brief so make sure the changes from the previous plan to the

neighborhood notification we have a group form and short depth i think there's been unfortunately a lot of misinformation about what the department may have are not supported other varndz uses justification maybe we can look at orts and we don't see those are precedent setting we look at the case should we pay attention to the variance typically when i review variances i look at the facts of the case we're relying on to make a decision about the variances but that's up to the board to decide we - have also the recommended the staff the staff recommendations was quiet modest and in fact

describingship the upper mass forward overall we recognize impacts and something we had concerns about at the department and the commission does as well that's why ultimate the project is different than proposed and significant changed we feel that was is proposed particularly what the 2 foot additional reduction on the back provides greater relieve to the appellants property still some impacts but the changes try to mitigate that from the group form previously reviewed i think that was a challenging project to refugee that that's you're seeing that here today before you and there are challenging issues to address the commission and as a zoning administrator we did our best

job is he discretionary review to weigh through the teller material with a balanced condition that's ruled in the project before you today and we look forward to hearing our comments and direction on the project i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> i have a question about the historical significance of this it wasn't clear if it is qualified is it on the register is the standard would you enlighten. >> it met the secretary of interior standards and the project compiles with the preservation concerns to the building was listed as a category b believable which is potential historic resource so if you have a project that meets the secretary of interior standards and it is potential

historic resource that is assuming that the building is a resources when you apply mr. the secretary of interior standards that are more restrictive if you apply the secretary of interior standards if it was a resource it should be okay. so you don't need to go to a greater level of environmental review so is if it is differently a resource whether or not inclusively that was a historic resource it potentially could be maybe the project sponsor attorney has the further information my understanding we left it with the barking fact at project met the secretary of interior and the additional review was not required. >> it didn't have to meet the secretary of interior standards; right? >> that's the question no one knows that maybe or may not be a

resource. >> well so if you apply the secretary of interior standards then if it was a resource that will be okay. and so it is a more kind of city council migrant review if you meet the secretary of interior standards it would be proufbl so we come in with the b builds if you treat it like a resource you don't have to come an additional environmental review but if i don't comply with the secretary of interior standards you need to do an additional environmental review. >> the fact was potentially on the front so if the construction were 3ushd out further that's correct. >> the concern how the bullet was from the street yes. >> the 3 year rule for this you

did not consider what the permit holder called phase one to be the start find that would have kept the variants in place. >> not permit holder was persistent in argument they've retained an argument of the variance nothing in the planned that were proved in phase one revoked the variants decision i felt the variants decision was evaluated what was done with the model there was no mention of the caesarean in the permits they thought so i didn't see that as evidence of the variance that they have vested rights is to the decision in 2003. >> and do you - have you on

occasion allowed extensions. >> yeah. i mean, there's typically lapsing in the variants decision letters that allows the extension in the event of a delay on appeal donate built in but there was none of that the delay was for the change of circumstances for the project sponsor we see semiemphasis but not grounds inform extending the extension thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the permit under appeal was for the rear edition to committed two new interior

stared and electrical permit work filed in march of 2014 and issued by deploying on december 23rd a side permit the cost was six-hundred $6,000 on the permit so for and it is a site permit we want to anticipate the amounted to be issued with the structural work i don't have too much more to add if you guys have questions i'll be happy to answer any questions and some stuff on the seismic work if preapplication notes or letters i don't bring that here i heard it was researched not sure that will help you with anything either. >> can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on

public comment ms. michael's remove that from the side and if the people can line up on that side the room that will help move the speaking faster if you haven't filled out a speaker card that helps us in the preparation of our minutes you'll have two minutes to speak and commissioner president lazarus because of the hour and the length of the - >> okay. so please begin. >> hi, good evening. i'm amanda jones a resident of the san francisco and board member of sf moderate and concerned citizen who is thinking about quality of life for middle-class families in san francisco i feel are slowly being forced out of the city by the cost of living and the difficulty of getting things done the case is wrought

to my taerngs altercation this family is a post child child and with good reason this is the only house that they can afford it is a home that anastasia inherited and was raised in shouldn't that account for something that is not rich people i read the belief all one hundred and 14 pages and the letters i see the come up has worked hard to come miss with their design and keeping up with the architecture integrity of their home i think this is time to get out of their way and let them live in san francisco in a modest home their simply asking to make a one bedroom home into a bigger family residents we need to

support families like john and anastasia anastasia thank you for your time. >> thank you i'm christen hanson on better off of the project to make a couple of points first, as a neighborhood in nevada and as some place standing in their shoes before this very broad 7 years ago like anastasia and james we spent more than a few years going through appealed we praftd by going all the way to the board of supervisors it was a lengthy and difficult process anastasia and james don't need this ordeal living with a small child in this case, the planning commission granted this and have

upheld the process lowfat the decision stand by rejecting this will sincerely help families like mine and ann establishes and james stay in the city it matter here i speak from experience 7 combroorgdz i came before this board your board went ahead and previewed the board seven years we're in the same how did we didn't have other opgsdz like james and anastasia don't have now it is not easy in san francisco please support and move forward with this project thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> a good evening my name is a todd david and for identity person i'm with the friends of nevada and the co-founder for

the san francisco parent action committee to add charged with trying to make san francisco more family friendly i'm here to speak in favor of the project sponsors i feel like 5 hundred foot edition to a house so that a child can have a room to live in is a reasonable thing to expect or want as a family we all know how difficult it is to raise children i have three children in inform public schools kids yeah, only 13.5 percent of our population is under 18 it is the smaller percentage of any cities it makes it really, really difficult for the families to stay where the rubber meets the road where a family want to make

a modest edition to have a room for the child we need to embrace that one quick antidote i had a meeting this afternoon at the noah valley tanner and the owner is a jim smith gentleman he was in noah valley for thirty years i was talking about him coming to speak before the area he said he's never heard of an issue of 5 hundred feet in nevada got sent to a brotherhoods so, anyway wanted to share i hope you'll find in favor of the project sponsor thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> hi, i'm freddie live in the neighborhood the last 40