grant a variance until you have a determination. a determination is a written decision with five findings and the various goes into effect 10 days after the date of the written decision. there is no variant in effect. it is not even close to being in a fact. -- in effect. the variants letter was issued after this commission makes its decision. if they are needed -- if they are not even close to writing a letter and they have the evidence, why would they not just issued a variance? -- issue a variance? i e-mail this out today. sorry about the late time. this is what the zoning administrator asked for. i will skip down to the end. i will take the matter under

advisement. there is a minimum required. if the existing astaire -- stair, is ok. commissioner antonini: speakers in favor of the dr? ç>> i live in 776 green street. thank you for your time today. we are very sorry to be here under these circumstances. we have never had a conflict with our neighbors. we would never object to anything our neighbors wanted to do. what we stand to lose his privacy. light and air. i have a picture of my kitchen window looking out at the current stairs.

you can see that is my kitchen window. the stairs are going to be built in another 7.5 feet. the people going up and down the stairs will be able to look into my entire kitchen, dining room, my kids doing their homework, us eating their dinner. they can look to our dining room -- to our living room. if we are sleeping on the sofa, watching television. all of the privacy we enjoy in our small 1300 sq. ft.,. all of it is gone. we have now lost the privacy, which is really distressing. this is a picture from the same window. that is the current stairs. it will come out and another 7.5 feet. we lose all of our privacy.

there is also a light that we enjoy, but the main thing is that it is my only house and i love it and i cannot imagine not being able to have privacy in my own home. from what we understand, the project is voluntary. if they would do that, we would 100% support anything they want to do. we would give them use of our backyard to access their space. we will get them part in our driveway. anything we can do to make that happen. they want to work with our neighborhood -- we like to work with our neighbors. we have not had the opportunity to sit down with them and discuss it. we do have other neighbors that opposed the project. they signed letters and we submitted that would be a variance. just to summarize, it is all about privacy for us. we really would like to see it the stairs prepared in similar

size -- repaired in similar size. commissioner antonini: thank you. ç>> thank you, commissioners. i lived next doorç, the top floor. i moved into this neighborhood for 30 years ago in 1981. i was the first building that was condominium-ized in the neighborhood. it was the old north beach. for years, we all worked together, including the property in question. when everybody had a problem, we would work it out.

i am embarrassed to be here today. i cannot believe this. i do not believe this is an issue of safety. they brought this up at the variants, but i do not believe -- it is much cheaper than going back and doing the winding stairs. if it was really safety, they would come to talk to us. this is a unique piece of property. it is the only building on our end of the block that does not have a garage. to go down the back steps to escape the building, he would go into their back yard and you

were trapped in their backyard. you go down steps in their basement, go through a very narrow path, and come up to this door with a piece of steel that weighs a great deal of weight. they have to push that door and had it holds in order to get out. as mrs. gallagher said, if they were to come to us. it is a safe way -- the safe way for people to get out is to put a gateway between the two properties. they could go out to our garage. that would be an easy way. going out through this door is impossible. very few of the women he was ever lived there tell me they are even able to open the door. if they were really here for safety, they would be here with

an application for a building permit to change this and concrete this over. right now, it is a fire trap. this is cheaper than going through. they have had two years. thank you. commissioner antonini: are there additional speakers in support of the dr? if not, project sponsor? >> i am the engineer of records. good evening. i would love to do what you suggested and made that door more safe to get out.

i did reach out to everyone with letters and no one responded. we went ahead and look at the back stairs and it was obvious to me, looking not -- looking at -- it was obvious to me we could push out in the backyard. in essence, it was not. we're pushing the stairs and out. either case, you can see both neighbors are farther out than we are. i would hope that every one of these winding stairs in the city gets replaced. it is a matter of safety. this is why we've right codes. -- we write codes.

there are countless winding stairs all over the city that did not allow -- is an antiquated way to construct the stairs. there is a possibility to construct these stairs to present code. this type of winding stairs, as you can see here, is constructed with limited space. you see this type of stair where you live where you are constricted with space, sometimes on the side of the building. in some cases, we have no choice but to reconstruct the stairs as this. but here, we have the opportunity to construct a safe stair. there is and issue whether the

stairs would require replacement or repair. we have moved beyond this issue. we would like to get them to present date code. -- present day code. i felt we could do this without much resistance. we see the resistance being offered to buy the neighbors to the east and their opposition to their views being obstructed by illegal property line windows. you might be aware of that. i would say that we are not -- sorry -- we are not restricting their view dramatically. we are providing safe access and

some of these views -- some of these windows are out farther were you will not be obstructing their view. it is from the property line window. thank you. commissioner antonini: speakers in favor of the project sponsor. >> mr. chairman, members of the commission, the second speaker complained of privacy. my name is i am the attorney. they argued it would lose privacy. from the second photograph, you that there is already a loss of privacy. when you have windows right on a property line, you're going to be able to look in the other

person's window. that is pretty common in san francisco. he argued that he could not believe this was a matter of safety. as our engineer indicated, it is a matter of safety. this is not something that the owners decided they wanted to do for no reason. they did it for a particular reason. that particular reason was the safety of their tenants. that is what they were advised by their engineer and that is the only reason they are pursuing this project. thank you. commissioner antonini: are there additional speakers? if not, the d.r. requester has a two-minute rebuttal, if you wish. >> thank you. i wanted to address the issue of safety again. their position is they have been

forced to do this by the city under certain code, a section that has to do with run and rise carried they are ignoring other sections and introducing additional safety problems that do not exist in the present structure. in particular, the size of the less than the required 50 feet from the building. there is no area for egress. i have lost the statute -- here it is. california building code access of public way. it has to exit to the public way or into a proper backyard. if you can get 50 feet from the property, 50 feet from the building on the property. you cannot get 50 feet from this building on this property. you have to go back under the building, through a heavy trapdoor, with debris falling on

you, presumably. making this complied with the run and rise section of the code so that people somehow get faster or more safety down to this enclosed area makes no sense. apart from the fact that it violates the code, it makes no sense. there is a reason why you have an emergency exit, to get you to safety. making a fast exit to an unsafe place makes no sense and it is another code violation. it is swapping out one code violation for another code violation. and it is procedurally wrong to deal with the building code issues at this stage. it is wrong procedurally, wrong with the facts, along with the alw. president miguel: broader

sponsor, you have two minutes, as you wish. >> i think there were a few misstatements there were just made. we are not being forced to do this. it is for safety. i will show you this again. he is talking about going into this backyard and having debris fall on us. whether that is your or whether it pops out, it is the same space. i do not think there is any argument to be made about the type of egress we have back here. and so this whole issue about rise and run has to do with building this to present day code. this is a required second exit for the building.

it is not that we are forced to. thank you. commissioner sugaya: you made it clear in the packet. could you clarify exactly what is in front of the commission? >> in front of you today is -- are the considerations as the project relates to design guidelines, whether or not there are exceptional, extraordinary circumstances that relate to those guidelines. president miguel: that is the sole item for us. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i have a few questions. i think i know the first one. there were comments by the d.r. requester that there has not been a variance. but the hearing has to happen

before the variants. that is a procedural question so that answers that part of it. the other question that has been brought up is the replacement of the stairs in its existing format, which would be kind of inside the building, back and forth on itself, instead of coming outside the building, which requires a variance. are there safety reasons why it is better to have it in the new configuration? or could you do it in the old manner? ñr>> as the engineer outlined, t is so rise overrun standards can be met in the building code. under the building code right now, you cannot have that stair configuration. commissioner antonini: as written now, there would not be a solution that would allow you to replace the stairs under the

configuration that exists at the present time. is that true? >> that is my understanding. commissioner antonini: my next question would be, it seems like the most compact way you could do it. i do not know how else you are going to put it any other way. >> and other king -- another configuration is explore where the stairs would be turned in towards the other building, but that would put it closer to the property line and would remove windows from the fire wall. staff review this and felt that this was the least intrusive design. commissioner sugaya: just to clarify, the sole issue or the issue before the commission is not the variants itself but whether or not there are exceptional, extraordinary circumstances with respect to the stairway and its potential

intrusion into the backyard. the other thing that i think is not within the purview of the commission or any building code arguments that have been made, we are assuming and it is braley true that you cannot replace the existing stairway with the exact same stairway. i would doubt that the building department would allow that at all. which means that meeting the current code, as it has been pointed out, makes the stairway longer and 1 foot water. -- wider. turning it 90 degrees would put it up against the other building. that does not seem to be an attractive alternative either. as far as the commission's motion, vote, decision, we are fairly limited as to what our jurisdiction is. commissioner moore: just for the

record, i would like the zoning administrator to state that even repairing the stair were not the permitted under the current code because of the stairs are not compliant. >> it is an interesting question. under the planning code, an alteration can be made. as long as it does not intensify the discrepancy. the building code is an entirely different kettle of fish. we do not have the experience to opine on that. but it stands to reason is quite valid. commissioner moore: that means this there would be in order terrible condition. -- in repairable condition. it would have to go through a review by the building department and replacement complied to the rules that

exist, the correct proportion between the rise and run. >> that is correct. president miguel: is there a motion? commissioner sugaya: i will make a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project. perhaps the planning staff can explore with the building department, the engineer, everybody, whether or not a repair is a potential or not. >> second. commissioner sugaya: it is not a condition, i would just like to suggest that staff looks into the alternative. commissioner moore: this raises a very interesting question. in this particular neighborhood, where property line windows were at the time and the building

code was permissible, it is only the later code that took an issue with that. there are many situations where the stairs are an integral part of the body of the building. what do we do as it starts to open up and change not only the character of the building itself, which it does, but it also starts to change the overall open space? i would like to see it somewhere in your library a stair which has not met our position but was replaced to meet current standards and i would like to keep architectural track of it. it is not just doing something that conforms to code. no disrespect to the gentleman who is making the proposal. sometimes it is an issue of design. stairs are stairs are scarce. there are many ways to design stairs. i would like the planning department to track that because there are possible ways to treat it in an architectural way that is compatible an interesting.

that does not affect the motion or the position the commissioner is taking on it. but i would like to pose it as a challenge looking ahead. commissioner antonini: i can certainly understand the d.r. requester her's -- the d.r. requester's concerns. it does not sound like there are a lot of options on this assuming that the stairs are not repairable. i have been in some of these buildings, and in recent days, i go very slowly down is a because they are very steep and you could have an accident really easily if you are not careful. i would think the run would be more gradual on the new stairs. i do not think there is too much we can do on this other than not take d.r. unless it is found out that there is a way to repair the existing stairs.

>> the motion on the floor is to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. with the suggestion that staff check in with dbi to see if there's a possibility of repair. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. commissioners, you are now on general public comment. president miguel: is there any general public comment? >> from the experience today, it would be wise for the staff to resort to the position of when legislation is drafted, that outreach is done at the time it is being drafted. this legislation was drafted by staffing.

we have done a lot of legislative drafting. when you have something 300 pages long, it would be helpful if the people that follow these things were aware that it was going on, that it was reported on to the commission, that the commission could have input as well. and we just treat all legislative drafting projects as public transparency. to the commission and to the public, just to make it less gruesome. i have sat for 500-page legislation and you have generally had lots of community meetings, lots of opportunities to have input. even outside the commission. i think that would be a really good policy. thank you. >> if i may, this was not drafted by staff. interest -- it was introduced by the supervisor in may and that

was the first time we found out about it. >> i have a public record request and i will show you. >> i would be happy to look at it. president miguel: is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed and so is this meeting.

>> hello. you're watching the show that explores san francisco's love affair with food. there are at least 18 farmers markets in san francisco alone, providing fresh and affordable to year-round. this is a great resource that does not break the bank. to show just how easy it can be to do just that, we have come up with something called the farmers' market challenge. we find someone who loves to cook, give them $20, and challenge them to create a delicious meal from ingredients

found right here in the farmer's market. who did we find for today's challenge? >> today with regard to made a pot greater thanchapino. >> you only have $20 to spend. >> i know peter it is going to be tough, but i think i can do it. it is a san francisco classic. we are celebrating bay area food. we have nice beautiful plum tomatoes here. we have some beautiful fresh fish here. it will come together beautifully. >> many to cut out all this talk, and let's go shop. yeah. ♪ >> what makes your dish unique? >> i like it span