ook 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 something years i have 6 brothers and sisters and know and all the families there were 6 sisters down there i used to play with anastasia as a kid and became a carpenter they have the most merger house they want

to have their daughter to sleep in a speculate room and not have to do a lot of changes sound like a good thing we should 11 people at my home we're you'll in favor thanks for hearing me. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm karen and i've core survive treated anastasia for that 10 years for her disability she isn't able to work full-time i've seen her through a lot of pain and disability and economically would be very difficult for her she can't work full-time she is

teachers apartment because of her spinal condition can't generate more income so the economic hearts @att park of making the project bigger would be limiting to them to the point where they couldn't do that i'd like to see them stay in the neighborhood i've lived in the neighborhood for thirty years i know their family and i'd like to see more family stay thank you thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please hi, i'm berry live in the neighborhood and i'm a friend of the family and met ann establishes mom over thirty years ago and become good friends and worked together she's raised her kids in that house now airbnb establish and

james want to raise their children it is a modest edition extremely small house to begin with is something reasonable someone earlier said this is a poster child for families that is the way it seems to me, too. >> thank you. next speaker, please ma'am please step forward. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm emma i live on the one side of them on sanchez street i have no opposition to the model if for the comfortable of a child i don't see what the problem should be that's opinion thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, good evening. i'm arian

a neighbor of the james and anastasia and my husband and i moved in james and anastasia are a real asset to keep them in the neighborhood i am saddened to see they've had such a long process before the board in the good process prevents 5 story apartment buildings and terrible things blocking air and light we as neighbors value are value when we purchased the particular homes we did i'm sure there's 0 competing variations but james and or stash are very good and at a point at the can't afford to make any more commissioners at that point you have to weigh

did kerthdz what's better to keep this very wonderful part of the community here in our neighborhood contributing or should we force them out it seem like this is the decision you all are unfortunately called to make in this situation i hope you make the right decision and allow them to stay here with the expense of air or light or whatever i also brought a letter here from lindsey 5ur7bd and frederick their neighbors that live across the street i was hoping to read just two photographs from this letter you may consider that as well lindsey wrote in support of the proposed edition at sanchez street they've thoughtfully maintained the beauty of at

street and their editions doesn't impose on the neighborhood and provide a modest amount of space. >> your time is up thank >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm live only randell street that runs perpendicular to sanchez i want to say something about my experience in the neighborhood that reflect when i think that going on here i'm the younger sister thought that gentleman one of 7 children mailing my family has been there for 42 years we live 10 in our house 3 generations i believe that takes a village and will and lowest live and you can't remember i can see i've been in james and

or starbucks home they have small rooms with high ceilings i told or stash i'll speak on their behavior this evening last week anthony came to my home and spoke that said that jaipd and ash stash are trying to go back 6 feet and left with that thought but anyway i went to or establish to tell her i will speak in front of the please state your name and address but be proposed it prepared for me to say there's some sort of compromises between the original agreement and what i thought was a 6 foot edition now i understand that what the actual

distance will be it seems moderate as others have said i lived in the neighborhood known anastasia they've been respectful towards us i am sorry to meet anthony and kate under those circumstances i hope we can live and let live and raise the children >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm isabel the neighborhood at the back of airbnb stash angie wouldn't say anything a number or what but you know, i i'm a nurse i love life and nature and kids and have 3 kids as well

if they're going to build up and back i have a light well, now i live said but later on downstairs it is going to be impacted you know geological out everyday i'll see their side they have a lot of flowers this is how i love life i love to see their flowers and i love to do 2k3w5r7bd too come back like that and going up will cover their garden not only their garden it is their kitchen i always see them as a family they're there in the kitchen that's where the love is we're

not denying that anastasia wouldn't have the extra room i hope you can help them out that the light wouldn't be covered they'll have the one room far they're for their child. >> public comment is closed. we'll take rebuttal. >> apologizes scott sanchez want to stay i stated earlier the appellant has two appointed plans there is an inconsistency in the planned on the belief are not the approved plans they're essentially the approved plans the subtle differences first the approved planned the site plan is consistent with the plan

it didn't show the changes or reduction only the original proposal xepd to the rear but the other 40 plans shows the change the second discretion there's an on railing for the rear deck alongside both property links on the plans submitted that i i did permit holder that is gone to a solid wall it's my understanding from the project sponsor that they intend to make that roof obey some means have that be an open railing along the side for the rear deck for the site plan can be addressed through the addendum and the floor planned are correct but explicit reflect

the editions to the process i hope that wasn't confusing that is almost 8 o'clock at night. >> is the fire rated wall. >> fire rated roof that's an alternative to the fire rated wall it could be glass that's fire rated. >> okay. mr. botching virtual your stepping forward please do. >> good afternoon good evening. i'm pat vovp virtual i want to thank you for being transparent and explaining the preapp they're attempting to use the code doing an edition you don't trigger a seismic on the main building but the code all new

construction to be code compliant the edition is full code but not upgrade the building i believe that is correct interpretation my concern is in their own belief the planning department riders modifications such that there's a seismic upgrade to the 8 hundred plus square feet building in the order of hedge fund and $20,000 it existing construction is 8 hundred square feet plus or mints $100,000 work the official number is $25 the official number to build new construction is hedge fund and $88 those are two-thirds of the real world but real world is

$300 to spend and they're spending one hundred and 50 they're close to being a few seismic and now another $90,000 which is not $100 proposing 2 hundred and restraining order dollars for seismic the department says their variants shouldn't be boonsdz seismic their clots to 3 hundred and 50 foot for seismic. >> there shouldn't be additional covets of moefthdz we're requesting to move it forward key point no one is asking them to leave or forcing them to move they can remodel and stay in the

home without walling off the backyard we feel this, too, we have children we want to have the k3406b9d of a child we remodeled they could do that by putting a smaufrl bedroom said do that without moving forward they could put the study said and use the front room as a bedroom as before no one is forgiving them to tell move out commissioner hyland's you ask me to tall one costs that's a smaller or cheaper alternative it is cheaper to set that rooftop deck and commissioner fung you'll know better b if there's a significant cost to slant that stairway and undertaken it up not the solid

property line you'd know better about the cost of the residential guidelines suggest in slaint the revolver of their first story down because if you moved the second-story forward if you goad and do that that creates open space their alternative that are cheaper or cost-efficient that allows them to stay in the house and if they want to do a full internal revenue remodel don't make united states permanently bear the cost and the risk of a lengths full seismic upgrade if thrlts a question fine mr. santos and mr. botching virtual about the seismic upgrades let's take a little bit more time to have it point clarified we've

seen this for 3 days the first time mr. botching virtual saw the planned on the historic that was there's still using the historic argument that deceptive rdt alternative nothing that the department is professing proposing goes anywhere near that far forward and commissioner hyland's you asked about concessions and compromise that was to the if you start by walling off my entire southern property line and now we're back 3 photo i don't see that as having to integrate xhoiths or compromises if you moved the second-story back 3 feet and sitting there 6 feet above when there are alternative without walling