>> jordan kwang versus the department of building inspection. protesting the issue on the october 7, 2011 addition.

and relocating at second floor. application no. 201-- we will ft hear from the appellant or the appellant's representative. >> good evening, my name is jordan kwan. i am the property owner. this is a former property we have purchased in 1982. there are building modifications. i am here today to appeal for the permit for the building extension permissions. this allows for ascension to the

rear. which i believe is not in line for the neighborhood. we like to show you pictures. this picture was taken from my third story stairwell to show that there is no extension for the deck hot in this neighborhood. -- for the deck in this neighborhood. right from the beginning, i did not receive any mail or notice for the permit in deciding process. i only got a letter from the central permit bureau on october 7 to my parents' house stating that the permits are already

approved and the building can be started. in the extension has a 5 foot setback. it is along the length of the extension. however, on the south side, there is the setbacks at all. it is planned to build right along the fence. the second story kitchen window currently has beautiful views and plenty of lights. i would like to show you pictures of that. it did not come out too good. as you can see, i can see a pretty good view and a pretty bright from here.

what i did is i put a car -- tarp over the bottom, the third floor to simulate how the extension will affect our property. as a result, it is completely gone. and the kitchen is much darker. you can also see in the second photo, right here. i tried to make the best i can to make this before and after photoperiod but it is not that easy, and especially once it is set up. the wind will start flapping in. i really don't believe the project is a good fit in this neighborhood. we got into the building and design guidelines which would be

a five-foot setback. or 5 ft in from both sides of the fence. i also have a question on the plan drawing that is issued for the sperm that, and hopefully somebody here can clarify this for me. let me get this drying out. -- drawing out. sorry. in his drawing, the elevation -- i believe this is existing.

it shows the dotted line staircase. i am not sure which property this is. now if i turn to the same elevation, the self elevation, north. you see this bottom-line the staircase? it is twice as big. this is part of the extension, where this is somebody else's property. i understand this is a new addition, but what is that? hopefully, somebody can explain that to me. in conclusion, i am not really here to stop the property owner , i just want the extension to be fair, reasonable, and enlivened the neighborhood.

>> if i may, my name is john, brother of jordan and also owner of the property. my name is john kwan, brother of jordan kwan and co-owner of the property. i just want to mention, if this goes forward, it will block sunlight and certainly will block the window. i am proposing that sense right now, since they are proposing the two levels, putting one back. to be consistent with the neighborhood, i have only found twenty second avenue and only one novel, in addition to that,

i am also proposing to have a setback rather than completely built right next to our adjacent fence. hothead and also, i would like to see the extension to minimize the extension right now. i really do not see that much back yard space a all on the property. so proposing to maybe perhaps downsize a little bit. president goh: how far down? >> that is what the city and planning has to look into it. president goh: what is the setback issue for you? and the size of the property build out? >> usually when people build out, they don't build a completely out.

president goh: how does it impact you? >> certainly the view and the window and the lights. president goh: thank you. >> would you put the first page of those drawins angs and how me set back from where? i'm sorry, the first page of the set of drawings that show the site plan. page a1.01. ok, so on the overhead, please. no, i'm sorry. do you have this? a1.01. i was asking her brother to show me on the drawing be set back

that he is suggesting. >> i believe we are asking for the setback right along here. the building is right on the property line, right against of the fence. and the other side, there is a five-foot setback here. president goh: we can hear from the permit holders now. you also have seven minutes and i apologize if i mispronounced your name earlier. >> the project for our

residents has always had the intent to design and build what is within our rights according to code and guidelines, and to be neighborly. we have been up front and try our best to talk to our neighbors with a specific time lines and documentation that we included in the submitted a brief to you, which i think you for reviewing. we can understand his concerns, but we are not and will probably never be experts in code and guidelines. it is our first residents. he will have an island and we have looked at this residence since 2005. we have relied on the architect and the city and planning department to ensure the project fell within guidelines. we wished he would have come

forth during the process or before the that we could have submitted alternative plans that would have over for us -- worked for us. we wanted to accommodate needs, potentially for a family. we do not wish to be at odds with our neighbors. what could be done so that we would be able to stay in san francisco, we talked to the architect about what would be allowable. we did a google map searched to see what would be keeping within the neighborhood. i call this exhibit f, and just to give you a perspective of location of our house and how far out people have built on the block. in keeping with budding

neighbors, our neighbors to the south, they have a three-story addition that is set back 4 feet and extends further into their yard. i also wanted to show -- i also wanted to show this picture of mr. kwan's house. the neighbors to the north have a deck at 14 feet.

no, the other neighbor. or the neighbors to the north. >> they're decked goes out about 14 feet. this house about our property for a trophy, than 14 feet, then goes out quite a bit into his yard. his kitchen window in question, this is our kitchen window where it comes up 12 feet currently. >> after we found out about the permit appeal, erin emailed mr. kwan with concerns.

basically removing a three-foot back in using that as a setback on his side on the south. and also bringing in the second story about 2 feet and adding it to the ground level. >> in my initial conversations with the neighbors to the north, in one of the earlier conversations, he said he was all right as long as we come in a couple of feet. in later conversations, he said that he would be all right but he didn't really want the windows to be facing his windows. the of in a plan that i submitted to them that i haven't heard from them, we put the deck on the back and have a bedroom windows looking to the back. in the first conversation with jordan, he requested that we be moved in 3 feet. then in the brief, he set 5 feet when his area in question is only setback for ft.

>> there was no immediate e-mail response, and the the timing and communication health through for follow-up. given misinformation, we both feel that approved plans at all in the plans, the project is modest and more than keeping with the neighbors and the rest of the block. thank you. president goh: i think i am a little confused. your buildings as it is a two- unit building? what is the one bedroom? how do you own both buildings are just one? >> we are the first flat. president goh: the one directly adjacent, the one right next to his property. >> of the whole building is right next to his property, so the upstairs neighbors have the

back and our building would be right next to theirs. >> they are not side-by-side, they are on top of the other. >> currently, we are in a 1- bedroom. >> and do you know the age of your building? >> i think it is 1910, but i will have to look it up. >> anything further, commissioners? thank you. mr. sanchez. >> good afternoon, president goh and members of the board. some background on the subject application. the permit holder had a notification for a pre application meeting in january of 2011. i believe the meeting was held on february 1. at least one of the adjacent neighbors came to the meeting

and i think at that time or afterwards, they expressed concern. the building application itself was presented, reviewed by our department and set out for neighborhood notification for 30 days between june 9 of this year and july 8 of this year. during this time, there were concerns raised by the neighbors to the north, a revised plan submitted. we did extend the notification to allow additional time for the neighbor to review the revised plans. it reduced the encroachment into the rear yard, is my understanding. there was a reduction. nowhere did the department here concerns raised by the appellant. it was subsequently issued without a discretionary review being filed by any party on october 7, and the appellant has

now raised concerns related to residential design guidelines. the project does comply with the residential design guidelines. we will show you how we believe that is complied with. i will start with a photograph of the property. they do have an existing complying structure that extend significantly into the required regard more than would be allowed under the current code today. these are shorter lots, as well. these are near the corner, so they're only 25 x 82.5 ft. the current permit holders product will come out approximately to where the deck is. if i can show where my finger is there, it would be that line.

the building extends for the than that. it is difficult to see, but there is building mass behind there. it is also significantly obscured by stairs. in addition to that, on the north face and facades of the building, we would not expect to have a direct light access, given that this is on the north side of the building and this faces west but would be scarce here. now i'm going to put on to the plans. this is the appellants property and this is the corner here at twenty second at a fulton. and twenty second and fulton -- 22nd and fulton. ina no a nod to the neighbors o the north, given how the shuttle

would be cast, to expect the building to cast a shadow on the property to the north much as the appellants property would cast a significant shadow on the palm of a holder's property. this is why it is set back from the property line. it is completely cut complying. and they are allowed, under the rear yard averaging, going up to 30 feet in height for the portion that they gained under the averaging period which is to this line here. they're building two stories when they could probably build three stories. they could do additional pop out, but they can't go in respect of the last 25%. there is an additional developed later that they could do. it is interesting to note that the addition of this project actually makes the appellant's property more code complying.

they would be averaging against this one adjacent property, so the rearguard line will be approximately here. if this is approved and built, the required rear yard line shifts back further. it could be gaining additional buildable area from this project, i thought it was just an interesting note. finally, i can show an aerial photo of the entire block. i appreciate the concerns regarding the open space. but i think when we look in totality, we see that this is not a significant obstruction and might be hard to get this on here. this is actually to the north, so there is no pattern of large obstructions. there are a few here, but as we get down to the subject property, arguably, that does

not go any further back and is less intrusive than the appellants property. some of these do have one-story pop out. it is difficult to argue that in totality, and this has an impact on the block open space. for those reasons, we would respectfully request that the board hold the subject permit. president goh: it sounded like you were saying that the reason that the five-foot setback from the adjacent neighbors who are not here was because they spoke up earlier. >> the neighbor may be here. commissioner fung: i think it matches the existing wall at the lowest level.

if you look at the existing drawings, it shows you the floor cut is the bedroom and is located approximately 5 feet on the property line. >> i believe the original project had a side setback to the north side property line. there was a revision submitted in june to address the neighbors concerns. president goh: i was noting the same set back wasn't given to the appellant, is all. >> the issue here, the neighbor to the north, they have a five- foot setback. they have the deck and the adjacent property to the south, there are stairs in the area. there is no window other than the window that is facing

perpendicular to the property line. in terms of preserving that area, the appellant already has construction in that area. it is not completely open as it is to the case of the property of the north. president goh: are the stairs code compliant? the stairs over the window? >> in terms of planning code, the entire structure basically past this point legal because it is in the required rear yard. whether or not is in building code, i would have to defer. president goh: bidault what year that building was built? and it looks like -- and do you know what your that building was built? it looks like it has been around for quite awhile. >> we established in 1921, --

reestablished -- wheat establishd 1921. [unintelligible] >> any public comment on this item? >> my name is william honeywell , property owner. adjacent property on fulton since 1992. it seems consistent with that date. i am here, friends and neighbors of both the kwans and mike and erin. i am in support of the kwans.

i feel that not being directly affected by extension myself, as much as the support anybody that does property improvement, i feel like it should not be at the degradation of the property. i feel like this kitchen window is going into a dark hall. that would be -- that would be my concern that we are setting a precedent, white and when does get blocked. i am sympathetic to both parties and i hope that they can come to some sort of agreement. >> next speaker, please? >> i am a neighbor to the north. i think the neighbors have been great. i am a journalist, and i got my

start covering city law. i came to these very meetings week after week, writing for the guardian, the chronicle, and i saw so many fights in here. these are great people. in the interest of being neighborly, this block is one of the most protected the mid-block open spaces in the district. we have had many fights on the block about different developments that have all been stopped, except for one that got partially allowed. but those neighbors don't even talk to each other anymore. it is unfortunate. everybody expected thme to d.r. erin and mike. when i bought my house and my deck was on the back of it, they have the right to build what

they can build. i felt lucky that they had a very tasteful design, they have verbeen very and communicative. it is unfortunate that the communication did not get to the jordan and john. they did not get the information until too late. a first of the communication was going very well and there was talk of the deck on the back rather than the side, maybe a little bit of a setback. but just the way that happened, we were trying to arrange a meeting and erin had shown some pencil drawings she had done on the back of the napkin. no. and i said that it seems good, i am good with the nature of the project. and then it got cut off. he wanted to hear right away and