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 an 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 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 res