>> so things were done... >> don't talk over me. i have a question for you. >> okay. >> which is you have a door to the side of your house. >> right. >> and you open it. and it goes on to what? >> it goes on to a little landing and up to mars street. >> with stairs there currently? >> yes. >> that is an existing stairway. >> yeah. >> i didn't put it there. >> okay. >> but the door is framed into the house. >> i understand the door part. i meant that i guess that i am maybe, what is going on here then? is it that you already have the permit and you built it already? >> no, i bought a house with it there. >> and could you i am missing something, here. and i think that... >> and should we have them come up and you can finish the questions with mr. auto first.

>> the existing stairs that he is referring to was a preexisting condition at the subject site. >> okay. >> they are being rebuilt as part of this. >> so it has been in existence and the challenge here is to rebuild them? >> yeah. >> essentially yeah. >> to rebuild what has already been in existence? >> yes. >> and how long has it been in existence? >> i couldn't tell you. >> do you know? >> it has been a long time. >> okay. >> i know that it has been a long time because they are not legal. >> the stairs,... >> thank you, that was helpful. >> no other questions, for mr. auto then we will hear from the department now. >> thank you. >> thank you, with the department of public works and

mapping, i believe what the issue really is here is the original design for this addition that mr. auto is proposing, was reviewed by the building department and the planning department thus as it was essentially conceptually approved as an entitlement already. and the reason that we got involved was because the subject stairway, and the stairway in question is located in the public right-of-way, thus it was referred to us to issue an encroachment permit. and we followed the regulations, and the regular process and did a notification and had a public hearing and at which mr. dean presented his issues and our hearing officer reviewed all of the facts and made... n >> so a permit that was for an encroachment that already existed? >> is that what is going on

here? >> that happens quite often. >> is that what is going on here? >> okay. >> are you finished? >> yeah. i have no further comments. >> okay. >> actually there is two stairways. that are for private use does that... >> yes, correct. >> and there is one that basically interconnects mars and core bit avenue. >> i understand that. >> but there are two that come from the house. and i guess that one could sit on the stairs and one would do, but basically for private use, okay. >> yes. >> it accesses the subject property. yes. >> and at two different points. >> at two different points, correct. >> the permit of that issue and the subject permit only relates to one of those; is that correct?? >> the stairways. no it reflects all of the stairways that are to be constructed in the public

right-of-way. >> constructed does it exist or not? >> reconstructed. >> so they are there currently. >> they are just going to be upgraded and made in the better materials. >> exactly. >> and so it is existing stairways that alrey access private access. >> correct. >> okay, thank you. >> public comment on this item? >> please step forward. >> president hwang? >> three minutes. >> okay. >> faster than that. >> hi, my name is mom murphy and i live with my partner and my young son on mars street and we lived on the property 15 years. on january 15th. i met with the architect on the project in his office in san francisco and he showed me an amazing project. it is a gorgeous new house it is not a remodel and it is a massive new project and it is

gorgeous and i asked for two egresses on the property next door and there is one existing that the previous owner took over and not the two previous took over and created and assumed the property. that is why there is one, there is only one right now and t o. and the architect would say that this is part of the plan and i said at i t get that it is public property and i don't think that you should be able to take that over. >> and the neck thing that we learned is that we learned about the new stair that david auto was willing to pay for and everybody loved that because it improved this piece of funky little property with a young child that would have helped safety wise, there were two public stairs and two for the lower and one for the upper, there were two public things, dpw, and he told us about what that meant and they could mitigate and so it was like okay, then we learned in this response that there is actually

one technically private stair and one public stair and we were like for such an explored project that has been through so many rounds to have so many questions as a property owner i feel dissieved and you just feel iky and that is it i hope that it was less. look at that. >> thank you. >> and you are having rebuttal and we will take public comment.. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you. >> okay. when the building permit was issued mr. smith told us that yes, there were two doors that exited out to the public property, but that he had nothing to do with other than just approving the fact that they were doors, and nick said that it is all up to me and up to the dpw people to put

something near those doors. number one. number two. since i got my master's degree at the university of wisconsin in philosophy, the last century i have longed to be able to use the phrase (inaudible), what nick elsner is doing to the logical fallacy. and that stairway that exists now, is illegal. and to make it the basis for a legal stairway is logically i believe incorrect. for the dpw to rely on the building plan that says that there can be two doorways here and to authorize the use of a creation of one public stairway and public... there is a public exit at the bottom of the property, if you go out of the door down there, and near core bit street, you are right on to the beginning of the walkway, of the public stairway.

and if you go out the other designed door, you have got a private stairway where people who are wandering up and down the street can hide where the people who are being pursued by the law enforcement will not be seen and putting more lighting there will not help the creation of a safety problem on our block. the bottom line is there is no basis for this stairway in the other one which was illegal and it is still illegal. and he is going to tear down the entire property. and it will all be gone, including i hope the illegal stairway. we start from scratch with this building permit. please don't let them continue with this mistake that because it is there now, it deserves to have another one. this man has more entrance places than any other house on the block. and he has entrances on two streets. and could have designed in the fact, tom will tell you had he had the time that he went and saw the architect and the architect said that i could

redesign it, it is not a problem. to have city property, my property and your property given away to this man because it is a convenience for him, he has never in a hearing stated there was a necessary, the hearing officer never found a necessity and if you would like send it back to hearing and have that question answered so you can answer the question based on the facts that have been gathered by the dpw and the question was never asked because everyone aassumed that it was all public access stairway. >> mr. auto. >> okay. once again, this is a two-minute property now, not a single family home, the entrance on the lower side is a new entrance and it takes up two steps of the public or the public stairway to go up two steps into the house. that is how much i am going to

pay tax on for the lower unit. the upper unit or the existing stairway is, and i would like to comment on what is legal and what is not legal. if the whole city of san francisco fell down tomorrow, my architect told me less than five percent of it could be rebuild without a special permit. in other words, there are stairways all over that were built at some point that are existing that can be rebuilt in a legal way and in a permitted way. and in good manners, and so, but they are concerned about that my access to the property and my access to the property exists now, and i want it to exist in the future. and everything that i am doing otherwise, is generous and it is a good total solution for the project. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners,

john the department of public works. and i was listening to providing information and also from both the appellant and the permitty, and i would need to provide the clarification to the board specifically. the location of 75 mars, applied for a building permit in 2010. building permit number 2010, 06, 1545, 12, to renovate the existing unit garage and vertical and horizontal additions and a dwelling unit. this went through the building department in june of 2010 and the or the planning department provided 311 notification in october and a request for review as to the design of the building itself. which showed the second point of egress, the discretionary review went through in

november, october, of 2010, and the planning department upheld the design based upon that requirement, and they, the applicant came to the department of public works and applied for a minor encroachment permit. and i believe that for the department, for the public works, we reviewed the technical merits of the permit and not necessarily what happened before as it relates to the entitlement, it appears that the appellant and the property owner are now back to this work are arguing over the entitlement portion of it that is why i want to clarify for the board and appears to the department. we believe from making it stated clearly, we followed the process as it relates to the minor encroachment permit and notification was provided and objections were heard and made to approve the permit based upon the approval of the building department and the planning department. and it is up for appeal based

on that approval from the department. i am here to answer any questions that you guys may have. >> i have a e ideny been there since several owners, the private use stairs that are public. >> to clarify, there was one set of stairs initially, i believe it was along mars? >> the access mars. and okay, there was a door as suggested that was on the side of the building. okay? and what happened is they would get access through this door to the public right-of-way currently it leads to the landscape area in that corner sliver that the appellant is suggesting, and that they are maintaining however, since based upon the application of the department and shows this egress point that the department is obligated to provide somehow, and egress in the public right-of-way and not

necessarily in that area. >> that was my question. it was regarding that sense the door has been there in some type of stairs have been there for quite a while, does that create some type of legal easement? >> there are no legal easements, they will have to issue a minor encroachment permit to the property owner, declaring that it is something to construct out of right-of-way and it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain and be liable for it. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> this is an interesting design problem. i do have to say just for to correct the record i believe that the permit holder misstated how many steps come

from the new stairs and actually four or five steps and not two. however, that is not the issue, the issue here is two-fold. one is if you provide a public access across a fairly steep site and it needs a certain amount of run and therefore what you see is a curve solution that increases the length of the potential run to be able to get down. and there were additional options that they could have had, he could have interrupted the larger run on that stair and then created to what had original in the permit holder

opinion illegal stair. but the effective issue however, is also addressed, if you make a lave long run have a legal conforming stair and you are doing it artistickly that varies in width, if you buy into that, proposal, then you are going to have a left over piece of land and it could be some type of planning and so there was a combination of things and i don't know why they came to this specific design. and the new stair that goes down alongside of the building could have been in the middle. >> however, you know, the fact that i have to, look at it in terms of the permit holder willing to do all of this work on the public private way that

adds the significant amenities to the neighborhood, and you know i think that he is deserves something. and therefore, at this point, i am supportive of the enroachment. as currently constituted. >> i am in agreement with commissioner fung, i think that although the permit holder is getting some value, out of the public right-of-way here, even if he is bringing more value to the neighborhood, and if you are looking at these plans it is a good cost to the permit holder so that this neighborhood could have some enjoyingment from looking at the pictures that were in the briefs and no man's land and so i too am in favor of permit

holder. >> and i am actually in principle in disagreement with the use of public property for private enjoyment. and the value added by the additional work that the permit holder would do is going to be returned to him in the increased value of his own property. for those reasons i would be disenclined to up hold the permit. but i will be out voted here. >> there is a motion. commissioner? >> sure, i will make a motion. >> i will vote that i moved to up hold the permit deny the appeal. on the basis that it was properly issued for the reasons

stated in the mr. dpw's brief. >> okay and commissioner hurtado, perhaps we could reference the pdw order as part of the basis. >> thank you. >> dpw order 181, 284. >> okay. >> othis will be on the basis of for the reasons stated in the dpw briefs and the order. >> yes. >> thank you. >> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to deny this appeal and up hold the sidewalk encroachment permit on the basis that it was properly issued and also for the reasons as stated in the dpw's brief. and the original dpw order. >> on that motion, to up hold, commissioner fung.

>> aye. >> hwang. >> no. >> lazarus. >> aye. >> honda. >> aye >> 4 to 1 and the permit is upheld on that basis, thank you. >> we are going to take a short break until 7:00.