tv [untitled] March 6, 2015 6:00pm-6:31pm PST
the language in writing and the issue of replacing that with other method if necessary the next night is already incorporated. >> that's correct. >> okay. good thank you you made our job a little bit easier we would if there is further dislikes required no than that the appropriate motion to grant the appeal and uphold the permit to be extended to july 31st, 2014 and incorporation of noise mitigations as per the list dated day today. >> with the conditions agreed to by the party mr. pacheco i know you want me to read the
moths. >> adopting the list of conditions that are stated 225 and the expiration date is 7 31 you want to go ahead and read it. >> he's got it on the basis of the agreement of parties. >> yes. >> so we have a motion from commissioner fung to upheld this night noise authorization permit with adaptation of conditions as signed and dated 2 slash 252014 and the expiration date be extended to julie 31st 2014 and this decision a rer7b9d based on the mature agreement of the party on that motion to upheld with
conditions and that extra condition on extending the date to 7 slash 31 and commissioner president lazarus arrest commissioner honda and commissioner wilson thank you vote is 4 to zero that permit is uphold with those conditions and that extra condition on the expiration date thank you. >> okay. thank you so we'll take items 10 a and b appeal number. >> call the item. >> i feel the tempo 02 both at 1784 sean's street versus the zoning administrator and anthony with the department approval for the property on sanchez and anastasia of a rear yard vaurnts
commissioner president lazarus if i may have a short pointed of order we have 3 new photographs, some screen shots of property with the variance accredited and a february 25, 2015, active exhibit that are new we have copies available for the board if they'll it for mr. gladstone. >> can they be 2340r7d into our presentation. >> i think their presented i would give the other party a copy copy. >> sorry.
>> thank you. good evening my name is anthony this is my wife kate pool we and our two children live here at 1782 sanchez street and the house immediately downhill to the south of the project sponsors so here we are we're asking the board to overturn or modify the variants our neighborhood proposal to fill in their backyard allows what the design guidelines prohibit filling in a rear yard and intruding on privacy and leaving neighborhood cut avenue oh, from light and air and space this year alternates to allow the project sponsor to add space to their
homelands without a second-story that rise 26 feet behavior our backyard and erecting a wall on the southern property line that leaves a 3 foot back at the back of the southern property line that red dot it the back the record clearly talks about the hard impacts that the planning department staff found that we quote would be greatly effected one big impact the tension extension extension leaves us with quote no southern exposure essential that's because if the planning staff found the project sponsors existing house quote extend deeper and it that
exudate and encroach and cut off the proposed from open space and shade the adjacent building to the north the adjacent building will be encroached and cut off it's our house our 3w50ishgd are backyard garden the commissioners additional recognizing the expectation was quote kci terminal advisory commission lit from the south to the north and quote the impacts on the adjacent property are just two large the neighbors seen this have agreed with the project sponsor sponsor saying light will be destroyed or taken away the record repeating confirmed the hash impact to fill in the backyard let me show you why because those northern end of
sanchez street a particularly steep our backyard is about 4 feet by my measurement below the project sponsors our eir regularly shaped boarder fads there's that end to the west in the pill last year's on 72 randell street unlike the od's of sanchez the larger lots have expansive views into another backyard to coveting and the bay bridge and the skyline on the elmo the picture in the exhibits showing the view to the backyard and here to the south you'll see the sunlight that comes down throw in january of last year you can see these
buildings here and here and here which because their lots are higher than ours basement and second stories blocking our view to the west this weekend we took photographs after raising flags to the height and the extent of the depth this to 0 the right is where the their end of tare wall at the end of their blatantly and their first story end 3 feet from the end of the property this plastic bag barrel fits in the property this is what 26 feet on the second-story and right where it is this was a sun in the afternoon
behind the second-story would be blocked by the it by the end of february and then a little bit later ducking behind the building on randell street this is precisely the type of backyard extension that the residential guidelines were designed to protect neighbors like us against an extension in the planning department w0rd cut off sunlight in the words of the residential design guideline leaves us boxed in and cut off and on top of they want to perch their rooftop duo deck to enjoy the garden they've w5u8d off and want to enjoy your groundingy and open space the examples of rear yard extensions and the variances
that the project sponsor cited conforming confirm how this departs in the neighborhood i've made google shots and given to mr. gladstone this show those property as you can see from those that none of them and come close to walling off a neighborhoods backyard or blocking their sunset i'll be happy to discuss that with you more and that's example in 2013 the particular time residential design team made a proposal they recommended converting it into a first-story extension and boxing up the space at the end of the building this is was a reasonable response within the
planning code and design guidelines but all the commission administrators strayed and permitted i did inpubically impacts from the project sponsors they did this because project sponsors claimed 09 alternatives to expand they're living space within their space trigger unwill affordable upgrades the board should reject this argument for two reasons first, the project sponsors argument it is too expensive but fill in their backyard this argument can't stand up under scrutiny whatever the project sponsors say the only evidence unput-down evidence those two educated and highly income folks pay only 6
hundred plus in property tax the partnerships second our structural engineering xhuflt we k5kd on monday after reading the perceive has significant figures that are inflated after years of project sponsors not providing data or fingering figures to move their master suit in the brief they've served thursday afternoon that provided for the first time the plan cost of seismic upgrade we have not had the opportunity to review the design and clauthsz flying the findings and have our seismic engineer propose alternative if
this is a issue the gentleman should be reviewing the data proposed alternates of the second-story about cost as much as the gentleman said that is no reason to allow the public defender's to see wall off their neighborhoods of the project sponsors are added may want not moving their second-story an inch forward you do from the drawing they could move the rear of their project forward and have a smaller master space but have built in drawers this is plenty of room upstairs for a kid's bedroom or use the study upstairs by adding a small closet they could eliminate the
rooftop deck this will not require the upgrades it doesn't make sense to asking him on on the service upgrades we and the neighbors have done the upgrades why not the prpdz they sit in a foundation uphill our remodeling team said if an earthquake knocks them off the hill it will brick or bring it down to our house seismic upgrades that can't insure the seismic upgrades so the seismic upgrades have not a reason to throughout the residential guidelines the historic presentation golden gates is an argument bansdz a false crisis choice between
their drawings and the straw man, i'm putting on the screen they've labeled up here it says rdt preferred edition if you look at the preservation argument it is falsify labeled the rtd edition falsely created this to the planning department by labeling that rdt preferred edition in the not true and the lastly brief this design reflect our katz and mine modification this is not true one of the actual modifications buzz moving the second-story forward keeps the second-story we've measured that at least 26 feet from the sidewalk that's fallout back from the sidewalk from the front of the house and the two donor messengers we're added we know
this is compliant 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