the stairs. if cost is an issue here, i think it's the most efficient way to resolve this. so what i'd like to put on the table if we could agree for him to reinstate -- take out a new permit, to install stairs that's cost efficient to the homeowner and the fees that are -- we're looking at here now, which i believe is $1900. >> $1038. >> to reduce that down to $100 or something. that's the most constructive way to solve this at this point. >> i would be totally agreeable to that. >> we have to come up with solutions here and i can see that would be a good solution for all parties involved and for the commission, i think that's the way we should take this. >> commissioner mar. >> i'd be amenable to that solution. here's the thing that's a stickler for me as to time because while i'm sympathetic to the homeowner, but it's been a long time and we have to solve it. i would support mr. mccarthy's proposal but give it a time certain thing. you have to pull p the permit for the stairs, finish in a cert

commissioner moore: treads on the wooden stair, aside from the top stair and the bottom stair are, i think, an issue of the code. i do not think that you can necessarily require a subsurface on every step but i am not quite sure. that is something that needs to be required and how it is detailed and how it is done. not only do you have a wooden stair, the only way it is done as the top and bottom stair have -- has a change in material indicating where the stair and and where it starts. so you do not just keep going and falling. i am not on top of the code. >> and want to clarify the proposed stairs -- i wanted to clarify that the proposed stairs are steel. commissioner moore: i thought it was woodlynne. >> the current proposal in this application is a smaller steel staircase. commissioner moore: that is a bunch of other issues. for some reason i thought it was a replacement as a wooden stair. the steel stairs are notoriously loud. they're like an instrument which vibrates when you go down the stair and that in itself is a big issue. >> this deal stairs were proposed -- the steel stai

it's still three units either way without the stair or was the stair. it adds convenience for my clients, but what is critical here is to get expansion pore their living space. >> okay. i think that would be any preference to take dr and remove the stair and approve the project. >> is that a motion? >> yes. >> thank you. >> second. >> commissioner moore? >> this is an extreme case and i would still like zoning administrator sanchez to come back and fill us in a little bit of where some of these oversights were or where people come forward and they are not inexperienced people, we have to all admit that, come forward and point to issues in the code, that we are either not using frequently, or aren't versed with? we're very clear about the internal stairs. mr. lindsey, director rahm secretary ionin, commissioner antonini, and all of the commissioners who have been here for the last three, four, five, seven, eight, nine years plus have gone through this internal stair thing many, many times. and we have altered projects or sent them back when that stair wa

the stairs. if cost is an issue here, i think it's the most efficient way to resolve this. so what i'd like to put on the table if we could agree for him to reinstate -- take out a new permit, to install stairs that's cost efficient to the homeowner and the fees that are -- we're looking at here now, which i believe is $1900. >> $1038. >> to reduce that down to $100 or something. that's the most constructive way to solve this at this point. >> i would be totally agreeable to that. >> we have to come

approved the stair penthouse to the roof deck i decided to remove that and replace that with stairs sins this was the request of michael smith there are 4 key elements one i used the footprint and volume that was previously approved and two gave back the addition volume of lightwell a larger set back there telethon the roof deck and 3 set back the open stairs from the west property line an 8 feet sect and finally move the backward circle last year stairs 5 feet away from the april it is smaller than previously approved in the dr hearing so the penthouse had been allowed the penthouse would be considered volume i could have used for access to the roof deck i gave back a lot of volume from the lightwell the volume is smaller than previously approved the residential design team sports or supports the designs and it meets the design lines and code because of the different was i had 3 planners and architects i've been caught in the catch-22 i stand before you, you than - whatever way i shouldn't have had to pay for the 311 and the staff dr i'll leave it up to you to feel if so is fair an

salmon -- circular stairs? >> no, but everyone is trying to comply with the law to make it as minimal as possible while still maintaining the safety. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i am helping the project sponsor on this appeal. the architect is also here. first, there are a lot of things discussed that are not before you, and i do not expect to address somthem, but i want to assure you everything was done with proper permits for the work that was going to be performed and inspections along the way for the work that was being done, including the stairs, so the same complaint was made commoto ddi -- dbi and the plang committee. they gave him the time to be deliberate in researching what happened, and he did the review and came to the conclusion of the stairs to meet code and were properly released. that is the beginning and the end of what this appeal is about. of course the circular staircase is going to take less space. it is no longer code compliant. when you build stairs, they are the minimum

is the issue with the offseting of the stair width of the driveway, or the fact that the stairs is being offset? >> it is kind of a two faceted issue. we both felt that in keeping that straight run, to a certain extent kind of maintains the historic character of the problem, and the street scape. so we felt that that would be more in compliance with the secretary of interior standards and on the other side the residential design guidelines express that she should be kept as narrow as possible essentially. more so just allowing for cars to enter into garages rather than being kind of a parking lot type of space. and so the residential design team has expressed that they would like to see the width of the driveway remain the same as well. >> as well as keep the stairs straight? >> there was no stance on the stairs from the residential design team. >> okay. commissioner pearlman? >> i am wondering if there were any historic photos before the garage might have been put in, because clearly those are different stairs, you know the stairs that start at the landing point and go up to the house a

with the option to add a circular stair or delete the entire stair but have an internal stair to the roof top on top of the bedroom and i can give mr. washington the sketch of what that can look like. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, are we retaining the decks in the back or what? >> if you are asking me, i retain the back, the decks in the back. i eliminate the eastern deck on the bedroom floor, have an internal stair coming up to the roof of the bedroom roof, pull this back by two or three feet so that it stays away from the level below. and then the stairs, either an additional circular stair coming from the bedroom going down or this stair goes away all together and the lower deck remains as it it. >> if you eliminate the circular stair, then there's no access between the floors, is that correct? >> the access and internal stair. there's an internal stair already. >> i mean on the outside, there's no connection between the decks. >> no. based on the loose interpretation of the modified code and single residential three stories, you do not need a secondary [inaudible]. that was th

if you walk down the old stairs or side stairs and all of that land adjacent to those stairs belongs to the city and you will see a gate with the wood and you will see a gate and they are always see through and open. they cannot put a barrier up for the people to realize that is not where it should go. and that is the kind of stairway that is allowed. by the dpw. and that is kind of the gate that is allowed by the dpw and they keep it locked and it does not allow the people to come down. anybody that looks at the side of this plan will see that the stairway that goes down on the side of the house is not a wide stairway with lighting or railings and made for the public use. i don't have to do the public use stairway. it is just the right way to do it. and opening up access to the land is a good thing to do. that is what it has been from the beginning it has never changed from the very first presentation six years ago not one time. >> except that it was made smaller. >> i guess that the they mentioned that the stair stairs that have been a public stair all wait through the site we woul

the permit on appealing pertains to the exterior stairs. the stairs one side mr. chin's building on the other side an are attached to our building. mr. chin does not deny the stairs ever attached our building and cross our property line evidenced by him state negligent brief it crosses the line photos in exhibit b in the brief. photos in the plan not guilty perimism since the stair case is attached his build and on the other side to our building, it requires 2 permits one for his and one for our building. the building code states no building regulated should be altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demo. unless a separate permit for each building. so mr. chin wants to repair the stairs 2 permits are required and he wants to move the stairs 2 permits are required. if mr. chin wants to remove or improve the stairs 2 permits are required. we don't understand the new idea mr. chin out lines regarding the connectors acrossing the property line. the regardless half is new idea for the stair case is 2 permits are required one for ours and one for mr.

and the building you must remove the stairs first then remove the fill if you want to put the stairs back that's fine but not place a surcharge open the wood two on the wall and third in so doing if you look at the footing that footing sits on old file i hope a new design will properly design the foundation so it sits on competent material like the that's the issue the fill is a recent fill as recorded by connecticut insuring that is an excellent geotech firmer you have to take the stairs do you think that's the issue here that's the issue as far as, mr. dui listency it was because of his injection into the planner that is being removed and new one being built if it wasn't for him we have another issue with the planner thank you very much. >> thank you project sponsor you have the rebuttal. >> commissioners, i have no other information to add out of respect for our time i'll wave them. >> that clicks the public hearing portion. >> commissioner richards. >> iue

i don't care i don't like the stairs the massaging it the same as the adjoining stairs it is somewhat ironic my request we amend this permit and amend the drawings to comply with each of rose and margaret wishes the first one the stair design that we actually put in open

foundation actually not lastly the stair foundation and the trees must be removed to allow repair of the decay to the property this is this photograph this entire staircase has to come out so he can get to the property and fix it so this and lastly the reduced soil level may affect the set back and that's up to you to interpret whether or not the section is adequately depicted by the soil level to be considered is 17 or 18 inches lower than it currently sits and the also the inner permitted patio that was built there, there are to unrelated issues in that the soil fill that was the recent fill a f-3 and the stair and stair foundation inflict additional sewer surcharge that's the first part of the presentation shall we move to the other one or stop and consider. >> no please go ahead. >> okay. >> i need a moment here please excuse me. on the roof deck there are 5 issues for you to consider we have the same orientation for to particular dr we're looking at the front outline in blue and the penthouse on broderick the first item permission to build the roof deck was deleted numerous time

the stairs look out to the 0 front of the house the privacy issue if you can see it on here this is a drawing of katherine's bedroom she will have a grandstand view of the bedroom that's the window she did arrow pointed to next to it a door with a window on it next to that a bathroom call thank you so much. >> okay any public comment on this item? okay. not seeing any that being said. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think the pardon should be afforded a rebuttal pardon do you have a rebuttal? commissioners >> commissioners as was stated we worked with enormous planners and each the planners had different perspectives we are were offend a penthouse then no penthouse and bulk head it is really been a variety of different changes i've worked diligently with the architect met with the neighbors i even provided changes approval space i was given at the previous hearing back as you can see we said we'd have a 4 feet set back with the stairs i made that 5 foot i was going to have a closet in one of the original drawings and this turned into the space here originally if you look here t

the stairs. 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 w

front stairs, there was a complaint about the condition of the front stairs. i saw them, they were not safe. that complaint got superseded by another complaint and that second complaint didn't mention the stairs, but a permit to comply with the complaint is not grounds to rebuild the front stairs. that was clearly a mistake to do that work. if you have any questions i'm happy to answer >> commissioner walker and then- >> thank you for coming and speaking to us about this. what do you estimate assuming you can submit the plans and things go- >> they are submitted. >> to do this project and comply with the notice of viivation what is a timeframe? >> the permit should be issued assuming planning doesn't change their minds since i talked to them and did what they asked me to do, we should get the permit some time next week, should. the construction cost, somewhere a couple hundred thousand dollars so it is probably 3 to 5 months worth of work and it needs 3 to 5 months worth of work. >> commissioner mar. >> when you said planning requires there to be one master pe

the other stair is an open stair that's open to the courtyard. we had slightly less minimum requirement in terms of a common stairs for roof penthouses, but i understand the concern and i would like to take the opportunity to see if i can design some very discrete roof penthouses for the three stairs. >> i'd like that a lot and i'm going move to approve the project with the advicement that it's not a condition, but the project sponsor continue to work with staff to try to implement where possible, less intrusive stair penthouses or hatches instead of penthouses but i would not make it a condition, sir. >> commissioner -- >> i don't hear a second. >> commissioner hillis. >> can i ask staff a question on the restaurant staff. why are we designated three restaurant spaces. >> restaurant uses within the haze nct are permitted, but do require neighborhood notification. we handle the notification simultaneously so the neighborhood doesn't receive two notices. this way by including the restaurant uses in this notification, then it's serving as the notif

front stairs, there was a complaint about the condition of the front stairs. i saw them, they were not safe. that complaint got superseded by another complaint and that second complaint didn't mention the stairs, but a permit to comply with the complaint is not grounds to rebuild the front stairs. that was clearly a mistake to do that work. if you have any questions i'm happy to answer >> commissioner walker and then- >> thank you for coming and speaking to us about this. what do you estimate assuming you can submit the plans and things go- >> they are submitted. >> to do this project and comply with the notice of viivation what is a timeframe? >> the permit should be issued assuming planning doesn't change their minds since i talked to them and did what they asked me to do, we should get the permit some time next week, should. the construction cost, somewhere a couple hundred thousand dollars so it is probably 3 to 5 months worth of work and it needs 3 to 5 months worth of work. >> commissioner mar. >> when you said planning requires there to be one master pe

i have not received any information on the back stairs. i am concerned about the lead paint because those exist. we have not been informed about anything regarding that. i do not know if we need to move out of the building or not when the back of it is demolished. i am in the dark about that problem. i concern is priorities. and doing the right thing. >> is there any other public comment? we will move into rebuttal. >> i do not have a rebuttal. i have to agree that it is a case of priorities and doing the right thing. this picture was taken today. the drawings they will use, i would think that a lot of things have changed in 10 years and perhaps -- this is a typical thing. why not take a new look at it. there may be new technology we can use. it is a typical measure, do the cheapest thing or nothing at all to her bathroom. this is how it is today. i am not against putting in the stairs but other things can be remedied first and should be. this is proper and the right and nice thing to do. >> the contract we have with our contractor include

park the stair penthouse now it is not been acknowledged by any of the speakers that the stair penthouse is within the space of otherwise that is occupied by a 4 story the stair penthouse is modest in size i believe has been reduced as much as it can be and sloped so it's not that boxy structure that appeared in one of the dr requesters drawings the stairwell penthouse is not extraordinary it is a common place structure throughout the city and you know there are people that dislike them but you know a deck in san francisco is considered common place and in fact can be a permit can be obtained over the counter you have to have a stairway to reach the deck so christian can explain but you know if we're going to have decks we need a way to reach the deck as for the final speaker there was one at 140 randell mentions there are impacts to the vegetable garner but the speaker lives 3 doors away no impacts to her house i'm not sure those two are consistent in my evident i didn't hear if the dr requesters or speakers in their support that mentioned extraordinary impacts that's what we are here t

and you can see the stairs. our intention is not to tear this down and rebuild it, it's to restore it. why think our plans reflect any kind of full demolition on this back end. that's all i have for my presentation. i turn this over. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. and thank you for the opportunity to speak. i don't have as much time as i thought i might. i just wanted run through and quickly add a little perspective on some of the findings, obviously staff did a comprehensive job on the planning commission granted the variance based on the findings. we have slight low more perspective to add but, really, i just want to remind everyone, we're here for a simple reason to review the finding and the appellant hasn't address proper standard review in his brief. it's one of the challenges in working with him, it's hard to follow what he has been asking for. we spoke with his landlord and we did make design accommodations in response to the concerns with privacy. originally the deck were in response to our o

they're all accessible through public stairs, two stairs. that roof deck is gorgeous. it's got planting on it. it's got beautiful furniture. and the private ones have parapets around them four feet high. you can't see anything. i mean, it's gorgeous and i would encourage you, i'll get you up there if you would like to see a really, really cool roof deck that does exactly what your motion says. i know we can design it. i don't know if we go so far as to be describing what furniture you can put up there. i think that's gone just a tiny bit too far. i can't control that. i couldn't. >> okay, thank you. commissioner moore. >> at some point people need to talk about the weight of the furniture. i live in the building which has a roof deck. until two years ago people just put furniture in there. when heavy wind comes up as it did two days ago, that furniture goes flying. sooner or later if you all in the planning department are discussing what we will do with this new roof deck for the emerging science of roof decks, dbi problem ~ probably has to weigh in furniture has to be

there is a roof deck and stair, which was noted in the 2014 violation. there is a connection-if i can show photographs maybe it will help understand better. if i can have the overhead, please. so, this is the picture of the front of the building at clayton street. the residential portion of the property. the property extends back to ashbury street and have a garage in the rear of the property. so, this photo here would show you a stair walkway leading from the rear the front building to the back garage so look ing at the bake wall of the garage. it is nice property. there would have needed to be a connection between the frunth and rear property because of the elevation so there are a series oof walk ways and deck stairs that go across from his property-i'll put up another picture here and let you see. again, just the doorway leading from the residential at the back. the reason i'm doing this is give you hopefully a better understanding of what we are dealing with. in this picture you have a stairway that goes from a lower area up to the main area at the

if there are not stairs associated with it? -- how do we typically treat decks if there are not stairs attached? >> it depends if there is a fire wall considered, its proximity to property lines, structural support, depending on the nature of the deck, it may trigger a 20 code requirement. commissioner borden: i have always thought of decks and stairs as permanent structures. to that extent, i have not been concerned about the intrusion into the rear yard. in san francisco, i look at lots of rear yards and a lot of them are overgrown. it does not seem that people seem to use them in the way that we envision them. providing a greenbelt is what they -- the best thing that happens in san for cisco rather than being utilized, particularly as a family room, kitchen, or that kind of space. it is because of that proximity and ease of putting furniture in. that kind of thing. i am not as concerned as commissioner sugaya and commissioner moore, but i would like to see this project move for tonight as opposed to continuing it. i think th

. >> as you know the notch is currently for the existing stairs which means the existing building is had has an open stair in what is the notched area instead of filling that in i want to encourage to have it partially filled b in but have the last portion be cut back again so you're not having too much of an expansion into the property line. >> i'm not sure i know where it is. >> it's that piece they can share that. >> it's west. >> this is where the deck would be. >> it's up here. >> this portion here is this what you're take the opportunity. >> no, no, no, no. >> third-story. >> right and exactly where mr. jennings is pointing. >> this sliver. >> no 3 feet on the corner. >> no, no. >> it's the part that is - >> it's where the current stairs are. >> we're saying not fill it in do you have the drawings? and the existing stairs are on the north side. >> sfgov if we could get the overhead overhead. >> he the drawings we have this is - >> yeah. >> is that little piece. >> okay. >> so this is right here and even if we agree to leave the deck all the way out here i want to pull the deck