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 jordan was trying to schedule a meeting, and at the last minute, they declined to meet. that is where it has gone wrong. i guess it is for you guys decide about the setback, and

the last couple weeks, nothing has been testy, but it has been a good dinner throughout. there is this notion of an alternative to belittle that over the first floor on the back of the house. i guess they have decided to go ahead with this one. these are all good people, and we appreciate you helping solve this for us. >> any other public comment? we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> again, right from the beginning, i am not really properly notified and the permit process. that is why i was not involved.

since i got the letter, i did talk to them and we tried to set up some meetings, hopefully we could come up with some compromise. she mentioned about a three-foot setback and again, i prefer to meet in person and sit down and agree. i never agreed on a three-foot setback with her. hopefully you can see that as a property owner on this side, without any setback, a building along the fence will be pretty obstructive to our side. >> could you live there? hong >> i used to. >> how long have you not lived in your house? >> 1987. >> of the room with the window in question, it is a kitchen?

>> yes. it is a lower unit. >> what is above that room? what is the floor above it? at the kitchen of the upper unit? >> be no what is the room above that? -- do you know what is the room above it? >> the living room. >> was any consideration given to -- or was there talk about bringing light into the kitchen? >> in has plenty of light, but we need a natural light. certainly we don't want to block the sunlight.

>> thank you. >> may i say something? to be consistent, i have never seen any extension of the was only one set back. i have seen people extend out and always both sides in setback. obviously, to me, it is not really consistent with how of the extension of the building is all about. particularly, it should be both sides. i am not an architect or in planning, but that is the number one thing i see. how can that get approved? >> three minutes of rebuttal for the permit holders.

>> i am the architect. i always tell my clients that the first thing to do is talk to adjacent neighbors. i want to reiterate, i do quite a bit of this work in the city. i have lived here since 1976. i wanted to clarify their was an issue. on the north side, we had the five-foot setback. there were quite a number of windows and there to allow light into his property. maybe it is not clear, but we have an eight-foot setback on the north side because we have the three-foot deck as well. when looking at the window, that spare covers that window. i am sure that window -- he can probably answer this better than i can, it is a required a second

means of egress. i assume that is why it is there. if it is built illegally, it should have had a one-hour firelock. if it is a three-unit building, it would require a five-foot setback. in either case, it doesn't meet either of those categories. i am told that the owner of the property did rebuild the stairs and he did it initially without a permit, later came back and had to get it cleared up. on top of that, it should really be closed in by the modern codes. thank you. >> anything further from the department? >> first, with regards to notice, the section 311 notification is for owners and

documents. the mailing would have gone to the occupants of the building as well as the owner of the assessor's records. and there is an address on the avenue, in regards to the extensions. it is typical to build when the code does allow the. setbacks are lout with the controlled lockouts on the back. you see either a one-story full addition or a two-story addition setback at the rear. and the residential design guidelines, even the full width may be allowed. you might be able to preserve light and air to windows. we believe that given the stairs that are already there in place in the development that has already occurred, and given the nature of the window, in this case, it will be appropriate to allow the addition of proposals

for available questions. commissioner fung: i was a little confused by that. with respect to the pop out beyond the 45% rear yard, you are saying that it does not require a setback on each side of the two stories? >> when it is two-stories, it requires a five-foot setback on each side. when it is one story, it will be the full width. you can note that on the plans, the bulk of the addition home is within the buildable area and is not a permitted obstruction. that allows them to go to the south side property line. there is a portion, 2 feet or so

that you see a set back 5 feet from the property line. the portion is part of the pop out, so that is why it is set back on each side. it can be a bit confusing. the bulk of the addition is within the primary buildable enveloping given using the averaging of the appellants property and the other property to the north. >> that staircase has the appearance to be a second means of egress? >> i would defer to mr. dufty. >> assuming it is, it seems to would consider not bringing it all the way up to the property line in order to allow light into the window. >> in terms of it being a second means of egress --

>> there is a good reason to have a staircase there. if there is a wall, the window really won't receive any natural light. >> i believe the building is required to get all of its own natural light in there from its own property and not from adjacent properties. i understand your point about setting it back. it is a discretionary call. your opinion, as is any other, it is a question of opinion and if the board chooses to do a setback, i think hollywood understand that. -- i think we would understand that. >> good evening, commissioners. i know you have concerns about

the staircase. the photographs show that stairway going right up the property line. i don't know when the stairway was built, but if you were building it with a permit today, it would have to have a fire wall. [unintelligible] it would block like any way through the windows. but we do see this condition all over the city with these older buildings, so it is hard to tell when it was built. i think the word conforming is probably -- >> does it appear to be a second means of egress to you? >> it does. i certainly don't know enough about the building to say that

it is, but it certainly looks like that from the photographs. commissioner garcia: it would block the light from the west, but what this project will do is now also block light from the south? from the north. >> somewhat, that is right. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president goh: comments? >> your time is expired. commissioner garcia: we don't

have a lot else going on tonight. commissioner fung: perhaps it will lean toward a solution. two issues about the appellant, their property, it appears that the extensive entitlement that allowed on the property was done before they bought it. therefore, that extension was probably done whether it had been reconstructed and got is a different issue and it doesn't have as much pertinent to my decision tonight. the question of the view from the kitchen window unfortunately goes across as someone else's property line. that is not necessarily protected.