here is a picture of the property we are talking about. one of the shops in this three- unit and building, two of the storefronts have combined. that problem is solved, and that was the worst. they had gotten a minor encroachments, and this issue was solved with a minor encroachment, and what they did was put out a minor amount in front of the store front. that really should have been solved before hand. here is this little ramp.

there is a downhill slope. these are the other two entrances. this was no. 11, which is the most problematic to get into it. this is no longer used anyway. these are minor encroachments. this is where the problem started. i would also like to add that most of the other stores, they have done an inset into the property with a ramp on the property, rather than on the sidewalk, so i guess my time is out. -- is up.

>> we will hear from the permit holders, now. >> good evening, members of the board. goothe u.s. congress signed into law the americans with disabilities act. for property owners that are not doing remodeling, complying with the ada can be costly. cooperation with the department of public works to allow

sidewalk modifications for cost- effective building entrances is critical. it would be a different story if of a property owner was proposing to be model of a building -- to remodel a building. mrs. levy has genuine concerns. i met with her to clarify the design. property owners and tenants were sued in federal court. one of the tenants has closed her business. this building was originally constructed in 1908 as a masonic lodge with five ground-floor places. we provided accessible entrances.

i would like to describe the proposed design and a couple of options and we studied. let me start with the plan. right where my finger is is the corner. that is the entrance, pretty much as it is now, to the village pizzeria. there are another four stores. today the spaces have been combined, and the other spaces remain the same.

this is the optionç we did that was included for a permit. it shows an 8 foot 8 inch wide and ramp, and a four and a half foot wide area between this street and this area. it is not really a ramp. the only thing that is a ramp is this area, and the rest of it is just a raised sidewalk that is fairly level. we also looked at the notion of having interior, solving the

problem within the property itself, and that is shown here. as you can see, for each of these spaces, it would take a fair amount of space to put ramps inside. we also looked at a five-foot wide ramp, but the department told us of was not a feasible option, because the ruling would be in the middle of the sidewalk. as far as the issue of parking,

i know that is a concern that it is going to be difficult to get from the parking space to the sidewalk area because of the railing that runs the length of our split level sidewalk, and along the front of the building, there are eight parking spaces. five of them are actually where the proposed split level sidewalk will be. it is not all of the parking spaces, so of those parking spaces, two will be able to go around their own car to get onto the sidewalk. the other three cars in the middle would need to go behind a parked car, and it is somewhat similar to a shopping center, were you sometimes need to go to

a parking lot area, go behind cars to get to your store, walking down the traffic island. -- isle. ças far as vandalism and graffiti, i recognize that may be a problem, but i cannot see how the railing is going to encourage or increase the amount of graffiti or vandalism. and we have not found out to be the case, and we have done many ramps throughout the city. i do not know if it increases vandalism or graffiti. do i still have 28 seconds? i will wrap it up and say i

request you deny the appeal and allow the construction work to proceed so we can have access to the building. thank you very much. >> i have several questions for you. the first question is, did you have a survey add-odone to showe differential of the side were verses the 3 spaces -- the sidewalk versus the three spaces? >> i surveyed it myself. >> during the time of the rebuttal, you may want to take a look at your plan. some of those allegations do not appear to be correct based on the photos. based upon your analysis, what

is the differential? what is the range between the finished floor and the sidewalk, and immediately outside? >> if they range from 5 inches to 9 inches. >> of the options that you looked at, the more common one would have been toward the sidewalk -- it appears from a cursory view the based upon that, it looks as if it can work. >> we actually looked at and warping the sidewalks, and that was one of our first conversations.

nick agreed that was not a viable option, mainly because of the store. >> what about the others bowman -- the other two? >> we could have done 5 inch steps are believed. i think they would have allowed that, but the problem was to get all free with a solution that work for all free, so that is why we went with the the rays sidewalk, which is on characteristic. there are two others in the city. one is between jefferson and fisherman's wharf, and the other is at the zen center. >> if you would take a look of the numbers you have for elevation atthink they make senn

what you talked about. >> i will take a look. >> can you tell us the status of the lawsuit that you talked about? >> all i know is what i see on line about it, that it was filed in november of 2010. and that it is still ongoing. two of the defendants have been released from the lawsuit, resolve that. but the other parties are all still, as far as i know, in progress. my understanding was that it somewhat dependent on what the outcome of this hearing and the decision on whether or not they can do this route or not -- ramp or not. >> you really presented just one option which was to modify the interior space. it seems like this is a common

problem around the city. the examples you gave are certainly unusual. it is a residential area, it deals with the raise the storefront, it is down on jefferson street where that happens, pretty a typical type of space that is there. this seems like a highly unusual solution to modify the sidewalk significantly to accommodate this. i think there has got to be other options to explore. this is a busy street, a busy area that is getting busier. i know i have travelled down there a lot, there are more pedestrians putting bifurcated sidewalks with a gate or fence in the middle of it seems like an odd thing to do when the city

is trying to improve sidewalks and make them more usable and the building parklets. >> i actually live very close by here, off of sixth avenue. when i first met with nick down here, we agreed that this particular part of clement street is fairly -- at the end of the street, it has much less traffic. we think of the busy activity along other parts, and there are very few people going down the sidewalk. i have been there many times and i have not seen a lot of foot traffic. we did look at other options, and i am showing you on the screen here. we also looked a five-foot wide walk away.

>> that is the same solution as moving the walkway somewhere else. the 1906 drawings you show how, it could have been area to use, but when was that modified to bring entry to the storefront to the property line? that is normally how it is solved in the vestibule area. >> i think there was a step there, even in the 1906 plans. [talking over each other] i don't actually have that information. the other option that we did look out was warping the sidewalk, but we did not brought it up, it is just part of public

works. we talked about what the slope would meet the. part of public works doesn't come around to this solution because they are resistant to doing it this way initially. and they realize that to do it, to get of these that would be really problematic. >> i have a couple of questions. the 8 ft to 5 ft differential was rejected. hughes said that dtw didn't want -- did not think that the five- foot accommodation was going to be sufficient? >> my understanding was that by having the sidewalk be a foot wide, the railing was in line with all of the street furniture that is closer to the

curb like the trees, the newspaper stands, all of that. if we move it closer to the building, you end up with a rail that if you are not paying attention, you might end up walking right into the rail at your traversing down the street. >> i think i don't understand the parking peace. i am having a hard time understanding how that is an issue. if you are parking at a slant and you need to get on the curb any way, you need to find a curb cut if you have a wheelchair. >> sorry, none of these essays -- spaces are wheelchair accessible. what i am imagining is that people who would be parking here would be able-bodied or if they

have hawkers or crutches or other mobility aids. they may have wheelchairs', but these are not designated parking spaces for people with disabilities. d're just regular parking spaces. >> how does the ramp and packed parking? -- impact parking? >> when you go from the street up to the curb, there is only 4.5 feet before you encounter the railing. the concern is that you have to go around the tree wells and parking meters to get to the end of the ramp. or you can go behind a parked car. there might be a photo of that.

>> we can hear from the department now. >> good evening, commissioners. the applicant came to the department with this issue with access. there are multiple entryways into the property of all types above the sidewalk. the current configuration of the doors are established at the property line. so under the law has

established, there must be a level landing. there would typically be a minimum of 4 feet by 4 feet landing. there are specifically for by for landing areas that is required. that places the sidewalk between 5 inches and 9 inches higher. what happened is, in order to make it work, we worked it without needing that and valleys. in this specific case, it does not provide enhancements to the sidewalk. it creates more problems for

pedestrians. they are dealing with going up and down accordingly. whereas if we extend the sidewalk and the landing, it will be through that area. we wanted the railing to be placed closer to where the edges of the trees are maximize the sidewalk with cannot have this intermittent barrier sitting right in the middle of the sidewalk where people might run into. within the last several days, we received feedback from the mayor's office of disability where the wishes to provide a courtesy struck where people can actually access the sidewalk. if the commission does of told the department's issuance of the

permit, we will be requiring the applicant to modify the red. -- ramp. it will provide a 3 foot walking area behind that sidewalk for it to work with the vehicles. it will provide an opportunity to decide if they want to go through the slightly raised iran. this is a very challenging situation, specifically because of how the existing configuration is set up. there are literally swings at a property line. it is also possible that they will be showing up word. there lies the challenge that there isn't much room to work with if we can establish the threshold.

there were comments as it relates to from the appellant about vandalism, about garbage cans, and being placed in the public right of way. i have noted that the property owner is responsible for this facility. they are required to maintain it, it is a swing. we will be requiring the railing to satisfy the building held which requires a much tighter spacing in these kinds of cases. as it relatesç to -- they are allowed to be placed of the night before pickup and must be removed for businesses immediately on the following day. we do not expect that to be a

problem specifically in this case. we understand that this is a significant challenge for this location, i do, when i was younger, did attend roosevelt middle school for a while and i know this area. from my recollection and from the site visit, the pedestrian volumes as such is relatively low and we believe that this provides both a benefit to the property owner as well as the general public in order for them to access these businesses in the specific case. i am ready to answer any questions you might have. >> if you are interested in the solution that the department is proposing, it would need to be something that you do as a condition to the sperm that. it is not something yothe

department could do later. the matter is yours. >> the department has guidelines for the warping of sidewalks on sloping sides. the more common one is where it is used for garages. there is some latitude allowed in those related to the slope as compared to what is the normal maximum that you would allow. what is that? >> there are two different conditions for disability access and modifications. we allowed the existing slope of the street, added to an additional half inch which is an additional 4.2%. if the street has a 5% slope, they could allow the people to

extend it to a 9% slow in order to satisfy these accessibility requirements. the maximum is 1 in 12. çthat is correct for lamps that would require railings. this would not be a rapid but rather the sidewalk. >> which is what the code says. if it is 5%, it did not require the rail. and understood that the city has no accommodations for that on the sloping sides. >> the city of san francisco has very interesting to ' and

apology -- topography and topology. businesses are open-heart establishments and we try to accommodate that by working with identifying a way that they can be satisfied. it is really a location by location evaluation working in conjunction with the applicant. and finding a reasonable opportunity or solution. >> the interior solutions that were shown, has anybody reviewed when they can be minimized or improved upon so that we don't do this on the sidewalk? there is a cheaper and easier solution inside the structure?

>> in these cases, the applicant would come to us with a request. obviously, the work inside the property line, we suggest certain things, but we have no authority to specifically direct an applicant to take specific actions. >> who would be out and work with to try to come up with better solutions? i would like to figure out if there are alternative solutions to work? are people walking down the sidewalk going to encounter a fence? it is less crowded, but it is not a residential area. it is still a pretty vibrant

commercial area. >> one of the things, just thinking about it, it can be done. for the applicant to lower the finished hot properties by three or 5 inches that can result, obviously, a lower threshold at the property line. the railing requirements be required to be on the big end of the ramp. ultimately, something could potentially be done. i don't know specifically how it is established. it is reinforced concrete? i don't know the costs associated. i have to rely upon a professional response to that question.