the basis for my request. >> you have directed our attention to page 4 of mr. aelsner's... >> yes. >> i see, but the last page, right? >> furthermore around article 15? >> no, ma'am, in his brief, 15 is mistaken. >> okay. i am in the wrong. >> because i have it, am i wrong? >> maybe. >> but that is the third page as i have it. >> are we missing a page? >> i see. >> yes. okay. >> i would like to read it. first paragraph begins in this brief. >> i got it. >> so you have had no time no the last seven days? >> i was not even in town this weekend. ma'am, it is not just me. there are 7 neighbors who need concerning this petition. and it was necessary to get them together and we couldn't do that until sunday, and therefore, i had to write this brief on monday. and so we worked as fast as we could and it is not just me, i can give you the names of the people on the committee that have testified in the main... >> are they here? >> two of them are, yes, ma'am. >> now,... >> i don't have a question. >> okay. >> your time is up on the continuance. >> okay. >> i would like to hear from the other side. >> could i hear from the permit holder now? >> no? the permit holder does not want to speak? is the permit holder here? there is not private about the property and they go to the side door of the house and they are there now and the remodels house has the stairs again. i am responsible for the land and there is a stairway that is going to be for public use and put on the land. and when that happens, i am going to want to be able to walk out and see what is going on just like anyone else in the neighborhood is able to do. so there are not really any changes, and there are no private areas in this property. and the more, transparent the property is, the safer it will be. and so the whole plan is to leave it open. and so i don't know what they mean by private even. >> so i object to these continuance. and hearings, and i don't know about something that has been approved. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> mr. auto? are you aware of this proposed park let to be installed? >> the proposed park let that they are speaking of in regards to. i am aware of it, we have made four presentations for the neighborhood which this gentleman has attended one time. we have had a neighborhood meeting of which this gentleman did not attend and swre been transparent all along. there is nothing that this person can read that says anything about private. and it is access. and it is zoned for access. but once again, with me and the land is not to, but the problem is to build the stairway and the adjacent property owner which is me is responsible. so we have done it with architect and engineer and with lighting engineers. and we have done this in a way that is totally transparent and available for anybody to see. we will come to the meetings and see it. >> and do you support the proposed park let? >> it isn't the park let. it is the wrong definition. it is not a park let that is his develop definition. >> it is dpw land and i am responsible for it. >> i will get the clarification. >> thank you. >> okay. and for the department? >> good evening, commissioners, with the department of works and bureau of the mapping and i would like to correct a misnomer this is not a park let as defined by dpw and planning, it is something that we will be reviewing in the next item. but this is in this particular instance this is an unimproved portion of public right-of-way and based on section 723.2 of the public works code, mr. auto as the fronting property and as the adjacent property owner to this land and unimproved right-of-way, he is already responsible for the area maintenance rise and as it exists today. and so granting an encroachment permit for private use is no different than a standard enroachment permit that we would use or issue to any private property owner to access their garage or a front entry stair or a door that happens to be adjacent to the public right-of-way. with regard to the continuance we don't have a position. >> the objection came from mr. auto. >> i see, thank you. >> and could you help clarify the basis for the continuance as i understand it is a paragraph in your letter. >> yes. >> that emphasizes the public stairway noting that the appellant is mistake en, could you help to clarify that issue? >> yes, the public stairway meaning, the public right-of-way. >> okay. >> meaning anybody from the public could use it guests to the house, and anybody, you know, walking down, or walking down that portion of it, and anybody can use it and it can't be fenced off. the fact that it does lead to the owner's side interest, happens to be it is in the public right-of-way and it is going to be for right of use. >> so the section also specifies that encroachments may be granted to the property owners to the use and enjoyment of their properties. >> this is the basis for the continuance here, why did you decide to emphasize this point? >> the fact that because mr. dean was specified in his brief that it was a public stairway. and what is it, what are the implications, from your perspective of it not being a public stairway? >> not being a public stairway? >> i don't understand. >> you are pointing out that it is a mistake and it is not a public stairway. >> right. >> it is on the public right-of-way. >> it is in the public >> it is open to the public and so pointing that out is a mistake and what is a significance is that to us. why did you do that to like i am trying to understand your point. >> because i just wanted because that seemed to be the focus of mr. dean's appeal. >> how does it make any difference to us? >> and i am probably missing something and i am asking for you. >> yes, i know, i fully understand it. >> i fully understand it. >> and we felt that the nature of the appeal was the fact that mr. dean was not appealing the entire encroachment, it was just this site and this stairway, that was misinterpreted to be a public stairway. if there is a motion to continue we can take public comment on that otherwise we will proceed with the hearing. >> it does not like there say motion to continue and then mr. dean you can start with your 7 minute presentation. >> there is an park let before he bought the property and there is an encroaching part that was constructed illegally and should not be used for the next stairway. it is a beautiful, thanks. >> i am used to it. >> i get that from my family all of the time. this is what mr. auto proposes to do because there is no real access around the corner, part of this triangle has no sidewalk. there is a lot of new families in the neighborhood, crossing the street has become a problem. mr. auto volunteered to build a beautiful cement covered curb stairway from one street to the next so that the people would not have to cross the street. everybody in the neighborhood loved the idea. but we didn't understand until about almost too late that mr. auto has also planned the two side entrances to his next home. and this is a home that is on mars street and i don't know what the entrances are there. and this is a home that fronts on corbit street and i don't know what the entrances are there and there is a planned and approved entrance from the park let down to the corbin street where the door just enters on to the walk of the park let. >> and it is objectionable from the drawings is a stairway that starts down from mars street about 15 feet down and it has a house on the left as you head down and on the right-hand side is a fence and at the end of this stairway is a fence. and the only way that you could get out of that stairway is by entering mr. auto's house. and mr. auto has built the largest house on the smallest lot on mars street, i think that he has opportunities for entrance that he has now the opportunities for entrances in three places. one, at the bottom of the hill, two, on to corbit and on to mars and now he wants to build an entrance off the mars street and that only can end at his house. and if that is public access, i am very confused. i want to park station and i talked to the law enforcement folks and i said this thing is going to be a landing 15 street below street level and cannot be seen from mars or core bit and they said that we don't like that idea very much, it presents a public safety issue, elsner is great, tom and i went to see him and i have gone to see him. he has explained things carefully it me and he has been immensely patient with me and corresponded with me by e-mail over and over and over and over again. he is a city employee of whom we are all proud of really. but here he raises an issue that i didn't know about it and nor did any of the other neighbors know about. this was going to be not a public access property. this is a private piece of property and i think what i get from his brief, although i have not done the research is because it is private, mr. auto is going to be required to pay $3 a square foot to the city every year, and the bottom line folks is that the police department says that this is a danger, mr. aelsner says if someone gets killed we will fix it. and in his brief he said, if we have a problem, with this stairway, and no one can be seen we will put in more lighting. the bottom line is that folks nobody in the city will be able to take care of this property once it is built and we have the same problem across the street and why build it so it is a danger and why even put the stairway in. and mr. auto has the opportunities for stairways on two sides of his house and did not object to another entrance on to this park let but we don't think that there is any statutory basis and the hearing decision does not, if you take a look at the hearing order and you take a look at the findings, 1, 2, 3, on page 2 of the documents and he does not address the problem. the problem is that this stairway is unique, in the sense that it gives him mr. auto private control over that portion of city property. the hearing officer specified no gates and no fences and prohibition. the bottom line is that you are giving the guide a stairway that is now city property. and he could have built an entrance to that big stairway, but that did not or was not enclosed on three sides. and he chose not to do that. he chose instead. to do something which converts our public property to his private use and there was no necessity shown, mr. auto says that i need to do this so i can go to my house and look at people. he just said that is what i heard. if a person cannot reach his garage and cannot reach the front door and cannot get to some part of his house, and then in city should let him cross the city property and perhaps fence it or put in a walk. and they have chosen not to put the stairway where all of the others and the steps and all of the stairs and all of the stairs in our neighborhood from the top of the street to the bottom of the street along the house. >> okay. first of all, i bought this property in 2007. this project has been going on for 6 years now and from the very first plan presented in that little house, in which he attended the side entrances were on the plan. all that he had to do was look at them he is the one that did not come to the meetings and did not operate. that is not my fault. we made out reach and every possible way that we could. and the second thing is that the stairway is part of a total solution that i thought generously would make sense for the whole community. because it is a very steep slope that it is true in the sense that there is no access to that piece of land because it is 30 percent still. for them for different stairways of which this final one is the only one that could properly go down from top to bottom at an angle that would not be too steep. this is one that is there that was there when i brought the house and allows me access to the side door and a minor encroachment basis but it has nothing to do with the stairway for public use that goes down the center of the property. at angle that cannot be addressed from the side of the house because of this steep grade. the two-side entrances were always there. now one entrance and the second entrance is for the lower unit and the lower apartment, because the zoning is two units and that is what this will be in the single family home. finally. i just want to say that i should have the same right to walk out on that property as ever neighbor in the neighborhood has. 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 would not be here. but i believe that... >> it is... >> let me finish. >> i believe that that is not enough run on that stair to be able to get down to the street adjacent to your home. >> that is correct. >> second question is you are providing and paying for the construction of that public stair? >> yes. >> what about the landscaping? >> what about what? >> the landscaping. >> it is also paid for by me but it is with a committee from the association and which of this gentleman here. and it will be done and once the grade is done and the stairs go in we will have a better idea of what it be landscaped. >> and who maintains it. >> the core bit heights association has agreed to be part of the maintenance of it and it is the ultimate responsibility of the owner of the property next door. there are a lot of stairs like this in the city this one is a little bit more. >> could you speak into the mic so that the people in the back can hear. >> there is quite a few stairways like this in the city. there are over 500 adjacent two home stairways in the city of san francisco. >> thank you. >> i have a question if you are finished. i am done. >> and the necessity. what is a necessity for the staircase? >> do you have multiple egress entrance? >> it is not a matter of necessity and it is a matter of access. and you have access. >> the access is already there. >> and in what way? >> the door on the side of the house. >> you already have access. >> it is build with the house. >> so there is no property there that you could open the door on to? you just... >> it is the property that i am responsible for has always belonged to someone else. >> 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 already give 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 not two. and the architect would say that this is part of the plan and i said that i don'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

Related Keywords

Wisconsin , United States , San Francisco , California , Nick Elsner ,