came from. >> this was prepared by you, not by the department. >> she is talking about the appeal peace. >> the various did not include the stairs as you had originally considered. >> yes. we were advised by the planning department. what we were discussing were these two issues. what was said today was it was a surprise to us that this would trigger an additional variance. that was a surprise to us, that was the first time we had heard that. >> my suggestion is that you think a very quickly and hard on whether that's fair without the further variances is

acceptable to you? >> you will have time while the department goes through a rebuttal. >> i am wondering if you can put picture number5 is up again? >> this is not the alley way, this is the view down the property line. >> maybe you can put this up. >> i was standing here. >> you can move the microphone. >> we are standing here looking out where the existing structure continues out with a three-foot setback as proposed. the diagram here shows a 10-foot light well. the vantage point is from this window looking out into the proposed setback. >> so, this is existing.

then the wall to our right. there are no windows. >> i believe that there might be a window right there and that would pertain to the light well we are pulling in. >> do we have a letter indicating the support for your proposal? >> we have talked to him multiple times and we cannot get him to write the letter. we have had many meetings, many promises.

they left san francisco 8 years ago and they have been managing the property ever since then. >> do we have a drawing that indicates that neighbors windows on the side and also in the rear? >> i don't believe we do. >> ok. >> that is the rear yard exit. that is similar to the current property which is on the east stair exit. >> this is identical to the property where the exit on the kitchen, looking at this picture, you can see the door jamb of the exit. what you see here is a small talked with the stairs going down from the rear. >> they are set back 3 feet from

the property line as well. >> yes. we actually have a photograph of the rear. >> ok. >> this is a photomontage looking from the rear yard. there is a door that had no glass in it. that is how they get back to their backyard. that window is not being blocked by the design solution. that window is looking into the 3 ft. by 10 foot light well. that window and then, if we were to adopt your plan standing in

the same location, we would not see the window. we would see the addition chalking out. we are standing south and looking towards these buildings. >> correct, we are looking to the north and seen the south elevation. >> i would like to point out one other thing which is going to the idea of professional responsibility. >> you have light wells facing each other thereby increasing the overall size of your light rail -- light well. we are providing a substantial light well in length with the understanding that at some point of this house will be developed. a proper response would be an additional 3 foot by 10 foot

like well. -- light well. this is a nice size for both of these units. >> why wouldn't have been a light drip mirrored on the other property, how come that would not be preferable in terms of getting light to each property? >> it would be preferable if you wanted to maximize your light to both of those. the argument we are making is that this lot has a five footed jog at the rear of the house. it goes from 25 feet to 15 feet. when you subtract an additional 3 feet, you're left with 17 feet. this is a very difficult thing to plan a functional efficiency.

we don't feel that we are any detrimental situation. we are providing a larger than normal light well. >> i just want to say a few things. the first is that i know the project sponsors architect. this will not affect my judgment. the second is with respect to whether the issue is moot. >> if you were to overturn the

planning commission in regard to the side set back, that would be permitted. if he were to overturn the second condition, that requires an additional variance and the existing various is not allow for that. the board cannot authorize something that does not comply with the code. >> where would that leave anyone? >> if the board were inclined to give them the opportunity to keep the existing design to the rear stairs, the question would be whether to continue this matter to give them more time to apply for a new variants. >> i thought the time had run for the appeal. >> for the existing variants. >> this has put our client

between a rock and a hard place and this is distressing that we have gone through a year of planning and this comes out at the last minute. i want to express the frustrations that we have best professionals when we tried to do our best. there are two choices, this could have this terrible din. you could approve that and they could walk away and get approval from planning. >> that is one possible outcome. basically, give up the stairs spent some the second outcome is that you can approve whatever option you would say but hopefully you would approve of not having the will set back --

of not having the setback. you would not approve the stair. you would then have to go back. >> you can file for late jurisdiction. you can oppose the decisions that they made untimely issue. >> hell laundered does that take.

>> this is something that we can discuss with the project sponsor. we have been working with the project sponsor to get them to the point where we can have the project of the board so that they can make it planning decision. with regards to the stairs, they could apply for new variants. we could look at other issues with the variants. what the differences, these would be within the footprint.

this is a smaller debt. this is the difference between what they are proposing and what the planning department has approved. i thought it was clear because the variance had not been issued. the stairs have inspired -- gone into the rear yard.

this is a very small and project sponsor. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> i would like to recommend that we move into public comment. if there is anyone here that would like to speak on this item, please move forward. we are back to the rebuttal. >> i would like to address the text where one more time. the planning code allows the extension into the rear yard setback under 3 feet. the condition that they would want us to have would have a

stair under 4 feet into the rear yard setback which is allowed. what they are asking for is a 7 ft., seven or 8 feet. this is about a 4 foot difference. this is not a huge but seeing significant for the neighbors. this is a garden wall for them at their expense. there are a number of things that we have agreed to. there are the difference on the deck stairs and this is minimal in terms of the extension into the rear yard set back.

>> when you say the neighbors approve of that, are you talking about the east? >> correct. normally in san francisco, you are adjacent neighbors, they are the ones that have the most sensitivity to what you are doing. in this case, because the house is located near the corner of diamond and 24th, the neighbors on time and have a significant say in what is going on. this group here, they are arturo pena. 816 are tood and anna lisa. this is a direct facing harris.

>> are these the one they have support from? >> i believe that this party have it. >> commissioners, the matter submitted. you are setting discussion of the rear deck.

>> you would need to explore the options such as a continuance and exploring with planning such as the reassurance of the variance or an appeal. you could address this side said that the issue. the side set back.

>> we would have to continue this. this would make sense to do it at the call of the chair. >> i thought it was simple. >> it might well be simple. i did not know that we had all agreed. my inclination is seen the light on the self going to the building to the west. this is a setback that mirrors the setback of this project.

my inclination is to up old the department of -- my inclination is to uphold the department. we do have that east side setback. i am also concerned about those west side neighbors not voicing an opinion and i wonder if i was that neighbor, i would be upset if i went forward and i did not get a chance to write a letter. i do have a question for mr. sanchez. the setback on the east side, we're talking about this set back on the west side.

>> this is really the residential guidelines. my inclination is to support the department and to the planning commission as well. i am interested to hear from the other commissioners. >> i think we need to be careful. i believe the west side extension to the permit holder and the property line, this rejection was by the residential design team. i don't think this is reflective of the residential design guidelines.

the issue of the guidelines in respect to the matching of the light wells from my review of the design appears to accommodate the residential guideline. the question there is not only with what has been agreed upon with the neighbors. i think that having the circulation element through the center of the building can potentially reduce the problems in terms of noise, etc., instead of running on the property line adjacent to someone else's property. i am in disagreement with what the project sponsor has indicated in the bottle -- in

rebuttal. the impression would be impacted should the stairs have to move further into the deck. what it means is that the outline of the stair wall and the stair itself becomes less visible in the rear yard because this did not move closer to the building. in neither case, this terror already engages the deck and in the room below it. the question that was raised by the residential design team is that they wanted to engage that further and not stick so far into the rear yard. i'm surprised that the issue was not fully brought forth

before this. the wall provides both to the stair. if it was determined by the project sponsor that they are accepting, then it would have less impact on the neighbors. the way it is configured, this appears to be a reasonable solution. i would support the overruling of the department definitely on the setback issue on the west. i am not sure that i would give thanks to the city attorney by commenting on the variance.

>> there is an irony working here. the irony is that part of this has to do with maintaining some kind of integrity in terms of design. i think we will burn down the castle to save the moat. is it more important to adhere to the residential design guidelines then to what is more beneficial for the neighbor? i'm not bored but the neighbors. they had the opportunity to give their opinion. these people seem very sincere. it is easy to see that the neighbor has signed off on this. they have not given an actual letter that we can turn over.

i think it is more considerate of the neighbor and certainly a better design in terms of what we're hoping to a chief. the best that we can do is to continue this matter and let them explore with various avenues and let them try for late jurisdiction. maybe we can issue a new variants letter. maybe this will extend the jurisdiction or maybe this will say something different and i do not want to give thanks to our city attorney but i hope that day prevail. >> i think the design as originally proposed looks more corporate and reasonable.

i concur with this almost in the entirety. i think that you have done an effective job. you have modified your plans accordingly and you have done a lot of considerations and extra light work that we don't always see at this juncture. i already have a greater appreciation for that. as to the side, i would agree that we should overturn the department and the planning commission's ruling. the stairs, to the extent that you have done the work with the neighbors that are most affected, this was what was what they seem to prefer as well as doing the garden work at your own expense, i think that speaks very well of you all. if i had my way, i would do the

same one that peace. more practically speaking, i would go with the continuance or whatever alternative i believe that you have. >> i think that this is the first time that agree with every comment. >> i invite the commissioner to make a motion. i make a motion that we continue this. can we partial this out? >> can i suggest that we cannot continue this? the act upon it and it will be their choice as to what further

avenue perhaps the department might be a little bit more selective in further issuances on this particular various -- variance. >> of the move that we overturn the department and we accept the first proposal that was presented to the planning department. >> you are overturning in granting the first proposal to the six -- to the extent of the wall. i thought we were better off with what had been proposed in terms of continuance. commissionger fung: as

represented by the department, i accept what can only be before us is action on the site. the stair cannot be in front of it. commissioner garcia: i think we are better off continuing it, having expressed their feelings, and having led the department determine where to go next. >> is that at the call of the chair? >> antje and dave are willing to accept the rear stair being pulled in and call it a day. we do not want to move forward and go through more torture. if the board would kindly propose that theyou