up indicating what has been approved? >> this is 2.2. there are a key plans, one that the private sponsors admitted. >> going back to something that you said, you thought there were going to appeal a variants but they did not. >> we had issued the decision letter, that is why we have continued to this item before. i thought those items were calendar for this evening. only before this meeting did realize this was the case.

>> this was granted but not to allow the full rearguard edition. circling back to what was said, if this board and the planning decision, they would have to go back for another variance because that was dependent upon the boards of holding? >> yes, this is a request on the letter or they could file for a new variantce. what you could act upon this evening would be the side decision.

>> we will hear from the appellants now. >> good evening. thank you for allowing us to appeal the ruling in march. i would like to explain why we feel that the strict application of the residential design committee is not the best decision for our neighbors. when we purchased our property, we were aware of this at the rear yard of our locked. as the plans of all to the affected unit of the housing,

the increase total square footage resulted in pressure on the layout and design. we would like to mention that the house as submitted had the support of many of our neighbors. many of which were against it but we were able to convince them through our neighborhood outreach. the art exit of the house was on the east side but due to the added square footage is no longer possible. we move to the exit to the house.

our children are very active for us -- this is very active for us. we need to move the air access to the side of the house. this is not either by us or the neighbor. we're not able to maintain the exit on the east side of the house. the planning department's recommendations will not reduce the shadow on the neighboring towns as there are no shadows. we would like to conclude that

no one be negatively affected. there is something that we could implement, however it reduces the usable space in the downstairs unit. we would like to have some extra privacy from our gardens.

using state of the art principles we feel we're making substantial, beneficial contributions to the neighborhood. we are hoping to build a highly functional house for us. >> solo. -- hello. the request for the setback on the second and third floors, we're asking for a setback as this is a similar property right as suggested by other properties in the same class. you can see that this contains a combination of light wells and

set back to provide relief to the yard. we suggested changes to the project. here is how it went substantially into the rear yard setback. the request for locating the

back stairs with a footprint was the second item. we're asking for them to be pulled up from the said act as proposed. this is a good solution for any person who do is against the property, present or future. we feel that this was a likely situation as a professional and try any future property owner is due to the fish bowl-like the fact that the open space has on the rear yard of diamond street. this is an up slope from here as you head up 24th. all of the rear yards are essentially fishbowls. this their walls extending out provides desired privacy to this current owner and we believe to

any future owners. thank you. i'm happy to address any further questions. >> is this for sale? >> no, we just feel that -- i have been practicing architecture since 1990 and we are committed to the city. we find that the residential design guidelines have been of great benefit to help us understand the greater good that we are providing when we design the individual house. we feel that we have the responsibility of the architect to not only address request of that particular neighbor but also what would anyone who might

move there in the future have to say about it? >> are you, listen to of what the acting zoning administrator said in his preamble? >> we are not, that was then known to us. we are unaware that that was not -- >> the reason why we were continuing from the prior hearing that we reschedule for back in june was it turned out that the various letter was not issued in time. we thought there was works in the process. it was our understanding that there was a personnel change. in the original guidance that we received was to simply appeal the two modifications that were suggested by the board.

at that point, we were not advised that we would appeal the variants. it was probably a lack of communication that we did not fully understand and maybe it just looked a little bit different. there would have been a definite appeal. we are not fully clear on what this all means. i am just explaining where it 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.