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 it off that's not a go

compromise i see that as good lawyering and moving that back we're far back when the plan started on the open space that's our green ronald reagany our access to open space there's a a coordinator if you look at our google map picture of the block there's a greenery from the second-story to the first story windows there's been a lot of confusion here about the planned again we were told you in december that the deck would not fend extend to the property and submitted planned this remodel a can be done and allow them to stay in their home the planning department realized that lets go

back to that are there any questions. >> okay. we'll hear from mr. gladstone hi i'm going to allow the beginning of my rebuttal to be taken by mr. santos. >> commissioners with structural engineer first, let me thing mr. sanchez for pointing out the discrepancies we'll make the planned corrected and we're proposing an open railing we'll be able to achieve that by filing the roof construction we'll be making those are moefktdz and we'll be smimentd

those in the process and cabo san lucas to the seismic issue of the costs if we push the verizon edition forward into the street we'll trigger a full seismic upgrade that includes this following one you couldn't live in the house during construction it's a small house to begin with no way to do that the project sponsor will have to find xhoomentsdz for the construction occurs, and, secondly the foupthsz be will have to be replaced and third filed in on the floor old house no plied and last the fact it is small actually makes it more complicated notice continuity so the it will be stroll costly i

think my numbers is actually modest extremely costly that's why we're proposing a modest horizon edition something that my clients can afford and we wanted to insure what we're proposing will be affected by dbi so we took the steps have a preapplication and a interact with the engineering and get a signature to present our finding there's no doubt in my mind that the vertical edition plays the way we're proposing makes economic acceptance and compatible with some of the historical features that needs to be preserved in the front and side of the building thank you. >> thank you just a couple of thing i know

that commissioner honda asked about the historic nature of the building this is the 1893 front of the building the only thing changed since there then according to the 23 page historic in our packet talks about how recently the clients changed from a non-conforming modern stair to an old one that is the original building when his report went to the planning department a preservation person boechlt of leathern analyzed the report and indicated no reason to doubt? the original facade and upon further reflection maybe the department will have interesting have to upgrade the listing it is lids through a 176

windshield survey and it has not been updated so that's important to note reasoning from the preservation consultant someone that is often used by mr. pacheco is stated before us and talks about how the greater height and length proposed by the appellate will visibly dominate and make the existing roof appear to are secondly visible to the new reproach however dominate it to appear to be a smaller main mask and in response to live together and compromise i want to say the

appellants added a third bedroom a noisy piece of construction during the last half my clients simply didn't complain about the noise that's something we do in the city we understand that at some point our lives change we do you want and move out of the city if by the can't put up with temporary construction too bad we lost 18 percent of families in the city have children one of the lowest in the united states in the new york times i think i printed that statistic at the end of my written presentation and it's why so many people that normally don't look at 4 hundred and 84 secret editions have

written letters of support and citywide organizations and people that i mentioned represent whether it's margaret the real heart of san francisco work hard to keep famed and keep us you know living together thank you very much. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you i mean, i'll be belief i think i was clear in my previous comments what was represented as the alternative i don't know if that's in the project sponsor materials but that's not what the department recommended to the planning commission so to be clear that's not something that the plans show are the recommendations is not what the department recommended i did not

recommended shift it forward by in the end we've made to the conditions the change of reducing it further to 2 feet and who it could be further 3 feet to get to the goal recommended also the ground floor the r t had concerned but the process is clear that's not the issue the issue is on the second level how far it extend to the appellants property i'll be happy to answer any questions thank you. >> mr. larkin's i have one so much has think outside the box said about destroying the current properties foundations or trigger the connective upgrading with the edition that will be added on can the permit holder then improve the front part of their property do you

know where i'm going. >> i'm not the appropriate person i can say once you have a variance no further expansion of the building is allowed without the zoning administrator to determine if a new variants is required if the future candidates could trigger a new variants requirement that's a condition in the variants decision a standard condition so why they innovating not trigger it's a new variants we do that n a case by case basis. >> in your opinion if they had more work it will triggeral variance. >> certainly the main driving argument to move forward it

what's been discussed creates a hardship and that's not the only reason and made the decision but one of the argument by the project sponsor i'll have concerns about the expansion maybe that triggered a seismic upgrade maybe they should produce the portion of the yard that was conditioned by the variance. >> you've raised a question related to the seismic are the potential of the historic resource. >> also i mean we've seen no nevada donor messengers quite regularly so i was trying to see where this was going. >> and donor messengers are minor yigz and reviewed at the

counter we have an identification that meets certain dimension there are donor messengers that are a full floor and some subordinate to the form. >> mr. duffy i'm not sure if the board has a question. >> i'm fine. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners the questions that have been excuse me. the comments and issued by both sides and most of the speakers you know i don't disagree with any of them the ability to have a larger family to have an

affordable house and have a protected garden and light i don't disagree with any of them the question whether the variance is appropriate whether it xhofrmdz to the 5 criteria and the finding that were necessary for that. >> i was almost situated by the fact there was a variance issue before i don't think people need to have to go through this process twice understand whites written into the decision letters and what a been standard practice by the department, however i'm not quite in agreement my response it's a new

variants and therefore i don't find it satisfies the first two criteria and i'm not supportive of the variance. >> i have some real issues along those lines and i kind of think that the net result of the variance with an an impossession on the neighbors so i guess i'm torn.

>> feel like there should something that could be done within the framework and allow them to do what they want to do without consequences. >> i agree with commissioner president fong that a lot of people have expressed a lot of good views and i agree we give up certain things or things when we live in san francisco and see a moderate improvement of 5 hundred square feet is not a huge for about for me not blocking any of the open space but i believe that the requirement for a variance are very strict i feel that living in a one bedroom home 90 in san

francisco is extremely tough with a child and i'm torn myself to be honest, i really am but given the amount of votes that will require to go this i don't know. i don't know at this point i mean both stories are extremely extremely compelling there's been xhifblt with the plan as well i don't know having an extension to clear some of that up will help us probably going to be on you commissioner wilson. >> commissioner fung give me a little bit more on the thoughts about not meeting number one and

two of the requirement for variance. >> before i go through directly let's strip off some of the things people brought forth i don't care to hear people making claimed about other people and what kind of income they make that kind of argument does nothing for me i don't care for you know the attempt to provide positions that are not necessarily characterized by realty how have that's a separate issue the perhaps i'm maybe too old

for this officer but the fact the variance criteria was meant to be also very strict at least for quite a long time in the history of our city the questions of whether one can afford to do the intensive redevelopment of american people existing building shell that involves not only seismic but absolutely other things does really play into the criteria of variance the question of whether we want in our city to have a difference demographics of both families and

non-families is not reflected in the criteria the criteria in my opinion reflects things that go beyond that and therefore leads into quite unusual or perhaps special cases and not standard like cases we've been hearing in recent years and so therefore when i look at the first two criteria yes. the other 3 i accept that but on the first two criteria i don't see the points maybe you can explain the first

two criteria commissioner wilson. >> you want me to read the criteria. >> i have one or two things pointed out it's in here look at right here the preliminary statement the copy of variance is in there. >> all yours. >> sorry. >> just want to get it right.

>> still clear as mud. >> just want to see excuse me. for a second.

>> i would say again, i fully appreciate the intent of the project is and that our decisions are not about ultimately who gets to stay and would gets to go it's ultimately the ordinances and all are properly applied to cases and that's where it gets difficult and while one would like to see this project in some way sharp or form that allows another bedroom the way it is being proposed is how it is consequences that possibly could be evaluated. >> i guess we should talk about

but finding one says there's extraordinarily circumstances to the use of the proposed that didn't apply to the property, etc., etc. does that exclude insisted that whole iran dill street and the way it configured isn't that an extraordinary circumstances or is that finding will talking about something else. >> so if that's the case wouldn't it be met? >> in my opinion it is the extremely the fact their smaller not rectangle linear lots if

you, we had another case fairly recently it was very similar in the sense that the lot was smaller than the standard san francisco lot but not you know i mean, i live on a key lot that is smaller you know and the issue foosz there should - was that xoerl being a fact it was smaller i said no i was, of course nobody agreed with me (laughter) i'm sorry but you know, i - have i voted for vapors before, yes i

have you know but perhaps a question of how one applies the definition to only a couple of words within that i know that's what is in that. >> and we don't have to say yay or nay but compromise for negotiations. >> okay. >> on that basis i don't need any further discussion. >> okay. so i'll make a motion. >> clarity in some of the

words. >> it's not real clear i mean, i know the zoning administrator and every zoning administrator has struggled with that and it is also been a difficult question we just been lucky all our c a don't succumb to pressure they vote their conscious i find that fine but the question whether or not other people agree. >> we look at it i get that part. >> motion commissioners. >> i lost 3 to one last time. >> i will start with a motion then i'm going to move that the

appeal be granted and the variants be denied because of lack of meeting the criteria one and 2 and the subsequent co-rent finding for those two. >> there's a alternative permit on appeal so is your motion to deny that permit as well? >> yes. >> basis for denying the second one it's not the same and the second one is predicted on the extension into the rear yard

if they chose to change that they're no longer regulated by the one that year rule because the design change so the permit is being denied again in part it requires a variance. >> it requires the variance. >> of course this is been a difficult one. >> will there be an appetite for continuing this with the expectation it might be - >> i think the question shall be asked of the two parties i have no problem with that. >> counselor. >> brad glad stone for the family we don't have a problem

with a continuance i just ask that it not be a week or two give us a little bit more. >> won't be for another three weeks. >> okay. good. >> and the other side. >> we welcome the chance to come to an agreement that works for all parties. >> i will withdraw my motion and move to continue this and i don't want to say to both sides i know it is difficult issue but i would hope they negotiate in goth and something else substantive is accomplished. >> i will sec