because this department scrutinized it and asked us to make a modification based on the historic presentation concerns so the historic premise argument is speak also and the project sponsors falsely preferred that from soliciting from neighborhood n neighborhoods can you dune in and this the departments recommended this box says we have looked at the landowners drawings in an alternate we understand the department of health favors it was the offer blown design i'll showed you they've signed a letter support our appeals and asking the board to compromise

another neighbors that signed the petition they want to be neutral and not be involved in this matter those appeals can't come down to the neighbors personal allegiances what this is about the board holding the building code in residential guidelines important protections of open spaces and privacy that's what our planning rules protect they don't create entitlement to master scoot and not allow the project sponsors to quote eliminate our southern exposure given those indisputable finding we're asking the board to grant the appeals awhile allowing the project sponsors to go by the city rules we've proposed 5 rules of modifications i'll be

happy and accident gentleman is here to answer questions. >> thank you very much sir, the permit holders indicated f that the original 2003 variance you folks did not obtain e object to it. >> we didn't file the outlooks to the city may i have explain. >> yes. >> the planner smith in the transcript explained why things had changed since then so it tracks what i'm saying i think in 2002 actually they came to us we've been in the house for a few years we had concerns and called the planner for the region informed that there role wasn't anything that planning was doing about it only the examination of housing we

didn't expose it as time went but they moved for a time to silicon valley and when we completed our remodel awhile working with our architect we learned about variances and worked carefully to do our remodel without getting a remold. >> you've answered the question. >> we learned about the residential guidelines that's when i began to right about it when they came back and made the proposal we were familiar with the city's procedure that's why we began it object commissioner. >> with respect to our proposed modifications what would be the cost of this 5 of them any sense of what would

be the costs in agreeing to our modifications and i did not it's from the seismic end that mr. bossing kwich could looked at. >> the modifications in the brief theirs indications those are something made or. >> that's correct in addition to sf planning commission they moved the second-story forward two feet. >> no moifgdz i understood made to resolve the issues between you and the neighboring neighbors. >> we've seen a variety of plans but i'll go and express concerned and they'll say oh tell me that the plan is wrong or has maekdz in 2013 but in 2010 we told them our concerns

they got upset and the preapplication meeting with the neighborhoods we went i told them our concerns the architect said there were errors from the drawings i talked about that without requiring a variants and asked them to consider. >> but my question is a little bit - i understood from their briefs that they had made some concessions to you in order to resolve the questions the question is one were their concessions made and in addition to the promoted modifications. >> we don't see them as concessions a deck on the on top of their first story that extend to their property line that's

not a concession they've set some of the second-story back by the length of the stairway excuse me. the wealthy they'll come back with the balcony as a solid wall and some days they'll say it's set back but only confusion audience the query to my question is no. >> no. >> and one other question why part of the difficulty i see here is that you have concerned about the light this is going intoxicate taken from your property but and you want modifications to what the planning commission and others have already said is

a very small sort of remodel to an already existing small house and so how do you balance your rights to light versus smojdz right to more space to raise a family. >> the way the code does and the way we did you balance it is a right to light and privacy and open space and those noah valley glen park are small you make better use of the space they're small houses. >> this isn't i don't think a big adjustment according to the transcript that i read from the - arrest the size. >> let me finish my question. >> i'm sorry. >> that's outlook i think i

have my answer. >> that's fine. >> couldn't that be duplicate by doing it forward to more cost-efficient alternatives like putting the kids' bedroom upstairs. >> the question was answered. >> okay. thank you okay. we'll move on to the networks. >> thank you. >> mr. gladstone.

>> there someone going to speak for the project sponsors thank you board members good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board i'm anastasia raised on sanchez street my father a deck hand and later and my mom a secretary worked i pulled did couple in the middle room and ate off the card table we can't afford to

buy another home in the city we're asking to you to upheld the planning commission decision on top of many xhoigdz splitting the difference between the appellants request i have a list of concessions on the overhead also on page 12 of the brief and it shows in total our concessions we've reduced since 2003 the depth of the second-story and the height of the second-story by 23 percent my husband james. >> good afternoon. i'm james in 2003 by the objected a vaurnts to build a rear edition to our samuel 8 hundred and 50

feet the edition was modest but we have in objections we planned the second-story edition at the restore to avoid the cost of living in two places to preserve the integrity of the facade that would otherwise have a massive new story we put in significant lash to build a new bathroom that is upgrading the plumbing and electrical and remove the expressway and a job a lot of we stopped from the building we start the process to resume the second phase and centuries then liz was born we hope you help.

>> first a little bit of prospective in 2003 with a variants there's been two variances there's been a planning commission in favor 6 to one and dozens ofometers and phone calls between the appellants and my clients so many meetings between staff and my clients over this 12 year period there's a lot of moving parts there's been one blimp in a consistent group of approvals that was when the r t or d it decided it couldn't enforce one set of rules for certain neighborhood and 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 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