inside. what is your current understanding of the restrictions on the permit of what customers at what time? are there no customers at a certain time when you have to clear it out. >> no customers, no employees, no tables and chairs, stacked to the side. we have to close down the service station and have everyone inside by 10:00. >> okay. so if we move it an hour, just changes all that by an hour. >> yeah. >> i have a -- i have a question for public works, just to clarify. when is this permit -- when is the one year up? do you know when -- if this would be issued, when would the one year be up? i want to figure out how residents would stay informed of the -- kind of what's going on in the background. >> is there notification? >> so there is some variation

in when permits are due, and the way that we categorize is is by zip code. makes it easy for enforcement. off the top of my head, i don't know the exact date, but i would be more than happy to e-mail it to any interested party. >> so perhaps this even -- >> february 15. >> february 15 is when this is up for renewal. is there notifications for this renewal? can you use the microphone, please. >> this is anna diaz. >> so how it works is we send a renewal letter a month prior to the notification dates, and again two weeks prior. >> and is the notification just

to the permit holder? like, how would the residents find out is my question. how would the residents find out if there's a renewal? >> they would not. but like, as we already mentioned, it's revoked, so if anyone complains, it can be revoked. >> so less than a year from now, it will be up for renewal, so hopefully, those folks are here -- these folks that are here are marking it down, so anything that happens during that time can be noted in advance of renewal. thank you very much. >> i'm good with one less table that is closest to the residential as well as last serving at 8:00, wheels up at

9:00. >> clerk: do you want to clarify? >> i think it's going to be three tables with 12 seats. >> clerk: okay. >> so that would be my motion -- we're going to grant the appeal and then condition the permit so that there are three tables with four -- four tops and that the table that is the closest -- the grove street residence, that would be the west side, that that table be removed and everything needs to be removed one hour earlier. and on the basis that -- >> residents are entitled to neighborhood enjoyment? >> yes. >> so we have a motion from

commissioner honda to revise the permit that the hours for the outside dining patio end at 9:00 p.m. monday through friday, with the last seating at 8:00 p.m., and that the table closest to the residence on grove street be removed and the permit is limited to three tables with four top tables, so that would be 12 chairs on the basis that this addresses the neighborhood concern regarding noise. and on that motion -- [ro [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion >> clerk: okay.

welcome back to the july 31, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are now on item number 8. this is appeal 19-061, ben lewis versus department of building inspection with planning department approval. subject property is 208 noe street, protesting the issue wednesday on may 31, 2019 to anton kalafati of a site permit. this is friction 201801118370 and we will -- application 201801118370, and we will hear from mr. lewis first. >> thank you for your patience. >> thank you for hearing me. as i outlined in brief, before i go further, i would like to address in the reply brief,

owner stated i did not contact planning. they have no knowledge nor presented any substantiated fact to that effect. i'm happy to provide phone records that i called planning when the 311 process happened. they never returned my call. if planning doesn't return your call, the 311 process actually is in the process. i would have much preferred to go through discretionary review instead of this process at this time. getting to the size and scope of their project, planning's proform arequirement of this set back of 15 feet to eliminate the advisability from the street doesn't work in this project because the adjacent building and the subject building already stick out 15-plus feet from the other buildings on noe street. the response brief states that the 40-foot height won't be

visible from the street. additionally, the fourth story addition will make this the tallest building in the duboce triangle. the added studio apartment in the garage making this a three-unit studio, but it's not apples to apples comparison to suggest three full stories over a garage is equivalent to a two-full unit garage over basement is the equivalent. i've submitted a number of studies of the effect to my building next door. the neighbor focuses on his

building being stronger and how somehow that will strengthen my building. construction access as i stated in my brief, it is completely blocked from the street. to get to the roof of the subject building, i have a picture showing here that there is trees blocking the front of roof. the reply brief states otherwise, therefore, this pictures, i hope you can see -- this picture, i hope you can see for yourself, it's blocked. the permit holder wants you to believe that his prior bad acts do not state future behavior. he states that my complaints constitute future bad acts. if you -- the permit holder

purchased the property in 2009. two months later, he started a gut rehab in the interiors, kitchens, and baths with no permits. the complaint filed and attached to the exhibits shows that permit holder dodged cooperation with inspection, and the matter was referred to c.e.s. the unpermitted renovation project took 18 months for the city to get him in compliance. the permit holder then got a permit to repair the stairway limited to a 50% repair. as he states in his reply brief, he made a mistake as the stairs were demolished, and he built two horizontal replacements, known as decks.

valid complaints were made in june and july of 2010. an n.o.v. was mailed in july but with no response. on page 5 of the reply brief, the permit holder states that no work continues after the n.o.v. was issued. however, it's not true. on saturday, october 16 contractor was working on a deck. police caught him. police called d.b.i., and ed sweeney himself came out to address this issue. his n.o.v. on 10-16-10 is listed on the complaint sheet. it should be noted that the deck issues span from june 2010 to february 2015, nearly five years, resulting in four n.o.v.s, a referral to c.e.s., a director's hearing, which

assessed multiple fines. the city's housing strategy, my brief stated that the city is trying to increase rental units and not increase existing units. on page six of their reply brief, they're stating that the existing strategy is to maintain families and make the city more family friendly. in conconclusilusion -- [inaudible] >> -- the permit holder may or may not have followed department procedures. however, not all projects and owners and contractors including acting general contractor and all this, they're not all alike. this argument fails to recognize the history of the owner at this property and the practices of egregious violations that span two to

five years during the renovation of his property. now he wants to be rewarded with his bad acts request. for the reasons outlined in my brief, including the seismic risks to my building that may present on the adjoining building as well as for the size and scale, i hope that the board will deny this permit. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> vice president swig: thank you. may i ask a question, please. >> yes. >> vice president swig: you addressed in your brief, i didn't hear it, sorry, the out of character with the neighborhood piece. >> right. >> vice president swig: can you -- can you address that because i saw that, and i want to hear it from you. >> sure. i don't have the pictures here,

but i think they're in the brief. really, as you walk down noe street in the duboce triangle, it's beautiful because all the buildings are similar. you have three-story buildings that are about 40 feet, trees, no interestielectrical lines. it's a beautiful neighborhood because of how it looks. adding this fourth story on to a two-unit building -- and i understand they have a garage, but it's still a two-unit building. it's still out of character. it'll be the largest building of a two-unit building in the neighborhood. i guess that they're clustered, you know? it's a nice look, but having this one zigzag -- you can see from the roof, they're all level.

>> vice president swig: that was the clarification that i was looking for is i saw the piece about they're all level, they all look the same. they're absolutely the same where i was losing it, and you give me a very good explanation is the sighting of three other buildings, and now, you've helped me gain clarity on that, that that's really something different than what this is he questered very -- sequestered building is all about. >> there's three-unit buildings. there's also an apartment -- >> because i'm less concerned about the buildings than the overall height. so in terms of the outside, there's three stories on the block. you're saying one side is three stories and one side is four stories? >> mostly three stories. my side is all three stories,

with the exception of the corner of beaver street, which is on an apartment building, it's on a corner, which makes sense? you can see here, there's a slightly -- >> can you raise the photo up? >> so you can see where the windows are across the street. that's an apartment building that is four stories. the elevation that goes down there, right, it's a little bit lower than it is on this side, right? so that's what i mean by it's going to be out of proportion with -- with the existing buildings. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner honda: i have a question, too, sir. so when someone plans to go beyond the original footprint, 311 plans are required to

150 foot birds eye neighbors. so before you got that, you planned to respond to that? >> i planned to that, but believe they're required to reach out to neighbors closer than that. >> so generally, there was a preplanning meeting. so now, we get to the 311. and what kept you from filing a discretionary review? >> 311, i received and i contacted d.p.w. on more than one occasion. they never called me back. i've been living here 20 years. i own the building 20 years, and i live there, but i've had other friends that have tried to make these kinds of improvements, and i've come to these meetings, and these things get denied, so when he can't call me back, i assume it was going to be denied. >> commissioner honda: okay. that's fine. i'll hear more from the

department. >> clerk: okay. you can be seated now. >> okay. thanks. >> clerk: we will now hear from the permit holder. >> commissioner honda: welcome. >> thank you, thank you. good evening. my name is david marlum, d&m architecture. with me and also will be speaking this evening are the building owners and my client, anton and jessica kalafati. this appeal fails to establish, in fact it fails to even claim other than some unverified voice mails perhaps left with mr. horn, who's not here tonight, i have no way of knowing. but in every way, it fails to claim a fault or a deficiency in the permitting process by

the applicant. this is a very modest project as you've seen that followed the department's published and well-established process including a neighborhood meeting to which the appellant was invited, and of course, the 311 neighborhood notification. 16 months passed from the date of the preespecially meeting to site permit issuance, and the appellants did not contact myself once nor the owners. i have no information to corroborate that he contacted the planning department. this appeal fails to establish any potential harm that the project may cause the appellant's property. all that has been approved so

far is a site permit establishing the architectural design. the addition is about 9 feet back from the current roof, and about 18 feet back if you count the front windows of the building. as we've illustrated in our exhibit 4 -- yeah, i'll move that around, we've modelled everything in three dimensions. i take some offense that we've somehow falsefied an image. the project's structural design has been submitted. we've added it as an addenda in your package.

the structural design has been submitted, and the architectural complete package has been submitted but not reviewed by d.b.i. of course, it must and it will comply with all relevant sections of the california building code. nobody disputes that. any claims that it will not meet code based on absolutely no evidence are wildly premature and entirely speculative. it's ironic that the appellant fails to see that the project will enhance the fire safety of his own building, but the project includes architectural plans, but d.b.i. because of the current appeal are suspended from reviewing them. finally, we hope that you will deny this appeal because it is riddled with frankly false statements which are either

unimportant to the board, false, or both. he falsely claims that the kalafatis who was renting the apartment short-term, that they have provided you with letters and e-mails showing that not only is this not true, but they have been open and transparent with their tenants and are well liked. so finally, this is a modest residential project that followed all the rules. no one's rights were compromised or denied. it has no negative impact on the appellant's properties or claimant's properties. seismically upgrading a building certainly reduces risk rather than increasing it. and a nine-year-old story about a rear stair that was begun by mr. kalafati's father as a general contractor but was not permitted correctly but then was corrected and it was closed four years ago following due

process from the city should not weigh on a decision whether to improve the property today. this is not be rewarding or punishing somebody, it's about the permit and about the project itself. personal attacks on my client's character i hope you'll find either irrelevant to the matter and baseless. so after hearing all of the parties, we hope you'll agree that this appeal is without merit and deny it. and now, anton and jessica. >> commissioner honda: welcome. thanks for being patient. >> thank you. i'm jessica. i just wanted to talk about us being landlords of the building. anton has owned the building for eight years. the tenants below have been there for the last eight years, david, you started living there

with a roommate and now lives there with his wife. and in the studio unit on the ground floor, we've had matthew there for the last two years, and he's given us no signs or indications that he's wanting to move out. we've talked to the tenants there, they know our plans to renovate, and they fully support the plans that we're doing and we have letters of support from them and our neighbors that say they're okay with what we want to do. we have been renting a rental with a minimum 30-day furnished rental just so it doesn't stay vacant. our first tenant we put in there was actually for over a year, and he lived in there in the neighborhood locally. he was going through a divorce and he needed a place to stay

when he was going through that with his wife. we tried to open up a line of communication with him in hope of appeasing some of his concern? we never heard back from him, and he's never reached out to us for anything that he's mentioned here at all. and i think i'm out of time. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> i have two questions to you or for your attorney. the preapplication meeting, if you have the date of that. i believe you have signatures of people who tended that you have -- attended that you submit. >> i'm the architect, not the attorney. >> certainly. not meaning to align you. >> those are your words, not mine. the date that was january 8. i didn't bring with me the sign in sheet. it was submitted as part of the planning packet.

>> do you recall if folks were there. >> yeah, there were not very many people as was common. there was someone from the neighborhood association. >> someone from the duboce triangle neighborhood association showed up and said they were supportive to our plans. they welcomed us to the neighborhood and said they were excite today have a younger -- excited to have a younger couple there. >> clerk: speak into the microphone please. >> oh, sorry. someone from the duboce neighborhood association was there and said that they supported the project and they were glad that we were there. >> even though the appellant did not show up for this meeting, we do have the list of the people that we mailed, too, which was certified provided by radius services. >> and does that include the appellant. >> oh, yeah, i'm quite sure that we did.

it would be in the planning packet. >> in record to the -- regard to the n.o.v., which was resolved in 2015, do you guys want to speak to that? i don't know if it was a new complaint about the same issue or different complaint about the same issue. >> i bought the property back in 2009. i borrowed the money from my dad, my mom, and my friend to purchase the house. i tried to cut corners and safe on construction, the permitting fees and do it quicker so i could rent out the units, and i definitely tried to skid along, and i got caught. thank you to mr. lewis here, but i was the one in the wrong. i paid nine times the permit fees and had to legalize the work i did over the years. there was the stairs issue

which my dad was in charge of. he originally started the repair. after he started the repair the whole thing was basically unrepairable. he just took down the stairs, and there was another complaint followed by another relation, so a permit was pulled to replace the stairs in kind. it wasn't in kind, it was actually enlarged, just ad more room. another complaint for mr. lewis, so followed by that was a third permit that corrected the issue but was never finished or closed out. that was a permit by me, and a new renewal in 2015 that combined everything, closed out everything that was closed out, paid, and done for. >> good job. we rarely hear that. >> will you be the general contractor on this project? >> no, i won't be the general contractor. i'll be obviously involved, but i no longer -- i have a

managing position in the company, so i'm just kind of a superintendent now. [inaudible] >> it's -- my wife's the compl

about short-term rental, what was provided in the appellant's brief is not actually evidence of short-term rental because in the notes, it says minimum 30-day rental. that is not a short-term rental as defined in the planning code, so it's code compliant. that said, the renting of dwelling units for executive housing for 30-days and more is something that is being debated now at the board of supervisors. there may be legislation that addresses that. second, regards to section 311 neighborhood notification, i

was not able to confer with mr. horn about the appellant's claims which i just heard tonight for the first time that he did not receive a phone call back. that was very unlike mr. horn. actually in the appellant's brief, he does provide an e-mail for a matter of photography that i will get to in a minute. but the section 311 notice which was issued very clearly states what the process is. you can file a discretionary review about the project if you have concerns. ideally, we want you to contact the parties and work things out. not only is the planning on there, but the architect's phone number and e-mail is on there, as well. the appellant had the ability to file a discretionary review. that process is outlined in the

section 311 neighborhood notice. it says if no requests for discretionary review are filed, this project will be approved by the planning department after the expiration date. that is language from the section 311 notification. in this case, i think the notice was pretty clear. in regards to the -- >> sorry, scott. and is that -- needless -- i'll wait until you're done. >> okay. no problem. so the section 311 notice was done. we did find it to be compliant with residential design guidelines. in approximate looking -- in looking at the concerns that the appellant has raised, i don't find this in any way a

violation of the -- our residential design guidelines. we do ask for generally top floor set backs if it's going to be rising above adjacent buildings. it's set back 15 feet from the main building wall. there's also bay windows on the front facade of the building, so i think it'll be minimally obje obtrusive on the neighborhood. i think the last issue that we'd want to address is one that was raised about some concerns related to the stairs at the rear of the property. so this was kind of new and the permit holder hasn't heard our review of this because we were reviewing the materials as they were submitted by the parties. mr. horn did provide the photos to the parties, but there's

some discrepancy in what was there in the past and what's there now, so if i could have the overhead. we have a question about the stairs in 2008. subsequent to that, those scar staired were demolished. the permit holder sought to replace them in kind. and this is a current photo. >> can you raise it up, scott? thank you. >> so they are in a different configuration and different size. so under the planning code, if you have a different size, they can be replaced in kind, so as you can see they are in

violation of the rear yard compliance. the concern here is that the structure was enlarged. interpretation of planning code section 188, we do allow for required second means of egress to be reconstructed and even absolutely enlarged to meet minimum code requirements for exiting, but they will require a variance on a couple situations. one, if a fire wall is required, and two, if you want to add some decks. so what i see on the plans here and on the plans that are part of this permit actually show decks there. and the configuration doesn't match the history that i have here. my concern is about the scares at the rear which could be addressed as part of this permit. it's probably the most straightforward method of

compliance or we could pursue that as an enforcement matter. and so it could be as simple as, you know, conditioning the permit that they provide a second means of egress. actually looking further athis, it may be best to have this come back with plans so they can have something that's code compliant. initially, i was thinking that we could deal with this with a verbal condition, but they may be in variance territory no matter what. given the photo it seems there's a violation of the rear stairs. >> to clarify what you're

saying. >> we tend to move, maybe rare occasions will get a project go through and deal with the legalization under a separate track, but generally, easy easier to get clieompliant whe you've got everyone's conditions, and you've got everyone's attention whp you've gyou've -- when you've got a violation. >> so what's your -- what you're asking is probably tonight to hear this later on when you can fix things. >> i mean, i think, you know, it could be a brief

continuance. we could work with the architect to better understand what they would need to do, it doesn't have any extraneous decks like what they show on these plans or if it needs a va variance, we can deal with that separately. >> just a brief question because i brought it up when the appellant -- this -- i always looked at this block as one of these sacred stretches of land, much like the houses on the corner of haight and -- laguna is it -- the row houses? >> the painted lady. >> the painted lady.

certain homes are sacrosanct there. is there anything by making that addition to this house that throws it out of whack with regard to maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood? give me some feedback on that. >> yeah, certainly. so the building itself is not individually rate d. it's a listed as a b, which is a historic resource given its age. so when we have a building come through, and it's a b building, we don't know if it's historic or not, and there are certain conditions that are triggered. they could have done a vertical addition closer to the facade. it would have been contrary to our residential design guidelines, as well, but we could have analyzed that. this is set back 15 feet which

meets our design guidelines but also review. >> -- because of that, because it's a set back, it's found not to have any potential historic impacts, and it's not within a known historic district, either. >> so in conclusion, your only concern is you'd like to fix what's wrong first before we move on and -- >> concern is what's been highlighted. >> to allow this permit to move forward. okay. thanks. >> and is that something that

just a conversation while we hear the next appeal would be sufficient? >> i don't think so because i think we'll probably need to get more detail on the plans and confirm how that would be taken care of in a way that doesn't need a fire wall, and they could bring back revisions that the board could hear at a future hearing. >> it would be reasonable for us to grant a continuance based on his concerns. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you'll have your opportunity in rebuttal, but we're now going to hear from mr. duffy. >> joe duffy, d.b.i. the permit is a property permit. it's been reviewed by planning, d.p.w., and been -- had a look at by p.u.c.

the addendum is hold pending the out come of the appeal. the address had come up last night because i had been dealing with some of the violations in 2009, 2010. so i looked it up, and there were some violations noticed for the stairs. those violations were closed, but it looks as though we're going to be visiting it again, so it looks as though that's part of the revisiting with planning. sometimes it happens with stairs. it's a tough one, and we go there and they're gone. basically, they put something back back, and they put something slightly different than what

was there before. >> just out of curiosity, it would be require upgrading the wall next to the staircase? what would need to happen. >> proximity to the property line in regards to not building this three-unit building would be 3 feet or less, so you'd have to have a fire wall. if there's any change in configuration of the stairs -- if someone builds an older in kind, and they don't change, then, we require a change to the fire wall. it's to protect -- the firewall is a 1-r firewall with a foundation that goes right up

past it -- that goes 42 inches past the landing, and it would be a 1-r wall. it's to protect any fire issues going -- a lot of people don't like them because they block light, etc., but they are a building code requirement. >> thank you. >> just one question. the permit holder did take care of it, so he thought that it was taken care of, just that it's a planning commission matter just in terms of how much space is taken? >> yeah. a few years later, you want to do an addition and this comes up. >> well, especially with stairs because they're grandfathered in. but when you take them down to a certain point, they need to be code compliant at that point. >> yeah, and it's in the rear yard, as well. the planning department had their requirements for the

variances and stuff as you heard mr. sanchez speak about. it can be tricky because we want to be as code compliant as we can. if they go in putting a deck or something there, theat's a little different than what was there before. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. okay. we'll now hear rebuttal. >> okay. so i would like them to answer the question. noe street is area, the stairway is here. the landing is now a deck. it has nothing to do with the stairway or enlargement of the stairway. it's a deck that goes back to the property line. there's a zero lot line behind

it, and then mine on the other side. so when jeff and i talked about it when we were going through all this 311 issue and this appeal, that's where we continued to dig into that issue which has never been resolved because they say we have no way of proving that. well, these pictures prove that because they can prove that they weren't there. now that these new pictures are here, it's proven, and it's an issue. so again, i can bring my phone records. i called planning and left phone messages with him. i called jeff, and i got ahold of raphael, my supervisor in my

district in duboce triangle. the biggest issue here for me is just the history -- that's not the biggest issue because i have the history that's in my bri brief. but to reward someone that's gone through two to five years of construction without permits, having all these notices violations, they would do construction after 5:00 p.m. so they couldn't get contacted by d.b.i., right? so i mean it's not like it was an accident. he's the general contractor, right? he should know better. we should hold him to a higher standard, and that's really the message that we're sending to the public by approving this is it doesn't really matter if you ply by the rules. it just matters if you drag it

out long enough and then play by the rules to get something better. >> i have a question. did you reach out to the permit holders by phone or e-mail? i mean prior to filing this appeal. it's a yes or no question. did you reach out to the permit holders with your concerns? >> the architect is listed. i did not reach out to him. i reached out to the other number, which was planning because they don't live anywhere in the city. >> be that as it may, the confirmation numbers is still provided to you. did you avail yourself of the d.r. policy which was also in the notice that you received. i know you called mr. horn, but

did you take advantage of the d.r. filing. >> i don't know what that is sk. >> the discretionary review, which is a way to appeal during the planning process. >> no. i wish i understood it better. now, i get it, but it's a little late, right? >> yeah. it's a confusing process. >> yeah. we all work. i reached out, like i said earlier. i thought the none response that it wasn't going -- nonresponse wasn't that it wasn't -- nonresponse was that it wasn't going to get approved. >> thank you. >> the other thing is this is my home for 20 years. this is my net worth based on this property. now she's the head of the construction company that's going to build this thing. i'm not sure that experience

level that i've seen from the past -- it's been work. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: we will knew hear from the per -- now hear from the permit holder. >> so it sounds like we're no longer talking about the core, but the issue of the stairs. as i understand it, the stair issue perhaps back in 2010, 2011, when the first notice of violation was issued t should have been hey, this was close to the property line. rightly or wrongly, it was abhated, feed were -- it was abated, fees were closed. if i'm understanding correctly, it's possible to open up a closed permit because the planning department -- >> in short, any permit issued

in error can be revoked. >> well, then, we'll deal with that. my last little confidential informant is more of a suggestion addressed maybe partly to mr. sanchez is i understand that using, you know, our project as a sort of a leverage to deal with other issues is certainly viable in practice. that's in fact how we came to legalize -- not to legalize, but to establish the correct 3-r report that this is a three unit building. mr. lewis has filed three complaints just in the last two weeks, so the d.b.i. has on file now complaints about the very issue that is now being uncovered and discussed. so if i may make a suggestion, rebuttal is there is a process

for dealing with that that we can't abide. obviously, mr. sanchez and mr. horn have looked at the photo, so it's on their radar. i agree, five, ten years ago it should not have been approved, so i would suggest that as a path forward for this project. thank you. >> are you done? >> i was just going to say that i lived in san francisco for the last several years. we are residents of the city, we are actively -- we're here. we live here. >> yes. and for the record, we had last year about 100 jobs all in san francisco, no notice of violations and this year, we've had close to 200 jobs, no notice of issues. every single complaint on this job has been from mr. lewis.

for the stairs, he's right, it did get bigger, but only to comply with the stair tread raise. and actually, the door is 3 feet from the property line, so there's no way to build anything without walking out of the door and being on the ground in 3 feet. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. mr. sanchez. >> in terms of the application itself for the expansion, it's compliant, and the planning department finds it's compliant with the residential design guidelines. so this is the condition of the stairs, so the condition that it was at the time -- >> i'm sorry, scott. can you explain what it is we're looking at? . picture is very blurry. >> so this is the rear of the subject property. where my finger is, that's the

exit stairs that existed in 2008 at the time the permit holder bought the property. >> can you lay the other sheet on top of it. >> oh, i had a whole presentation i was planning. >> yeah. >> oh, it grew. >> so basically, the -- oh, sorry. so basically, the deck or the stairs were removed without permit. a complaint was filed, and in july of 2010, this permit was sought, the scope of which is to replace the stairs as they were. it's showing actually something larger than what we saw on the photos, so this misrepresents

what the existing conditions of the stairs had been, but it's saying it's replacing them the way it was. there was a complaint made, and they said no, we expanded it larger than what it was before, so we're going to come back with a permit that would really correct it from what it was. >> i'm sorry, this is a correction of the violation. >> yes. this permit was from 2011. and then, shown on the plans that are before you today is something that was not on the correction permit. it actually goes to the other permit. the concern is we'd like to get this added, and by the permit

holder's admission that it's been 3 feet of the property line, i don't know how they're going to do that without a variance for a fire wall at the property line. >> so to rest the concerns of the appellant that -- which his view is all bad deeds go unpunished, the missed deed by the permit holder in fact has been cited and i'm not going to use the word punished, but you are suggesting a continuance where an adjustment of the misbehavior can be addressed to your satisfaction and -- but

w that that doesn't trigger

a fire wall and doesn't seem that the existing stairs have a fire wall, even though the rear deck goes to the property line. >> it sounds like they have this permit and because they can't move forward on this permit with an n.o.-v he this would have to add stairs to the permit or have a separate permit for the stairs. >> and the easiest thing would be to do it as you have here. it's just one final decision to resolve it >> go ahead, ann.

>> if they end up having to get a variance, that's a whole loss unto itself -- process unto itself. >> but we don't know what they need until we do further review. >> the architect may be able to design it in a way that's not going to trigger a variance because it's just going to be the stairs and landing no bigger than to provide egress to these units. >> but you need the continuance to investigate all that, come back with your recommendations and findings for this body so we can move forward one way r r another. >> that's the best idea i think. >> mr. sanchez, are you saying that this permit shouldn't have

been approved or issued given this issue that's come to light? >> yes. so should we ask the inevitable question to yourself and -- or to the architect, which is how -- how long will it take to ghoe through as described, the next phase of the process if we get consensus that continuance is the proper way. is it -- i don't know. >> maybe we should ask the architect -- >> is a september hearing date appropriate? >> is it mr. marla? can you approach. >> so you've heard the discussion here. >> yes. >> so at this point, i think the question is the department

has said you can redesign a minimum. you can go for the maxy deck which would trigger a variance or -- it's up to you. >> so this is the plans view -- sorry. just happened to have the site permit plan, and the scare in question is here. so to meet mr. sanchez' requirements or avoid a variance, yes, we can reconstruct the minimally code compliant stair such that it's probably four -- at least four, maybe 5 feet away from the rear property line. so i'm confident that we're wi