>> [inaudible] is there a corresponding building permit for the construction? >> we have received a piece of documentation because there was a complaint and a building inspector that stated the permit is required and we will be discussing this to determine whether additional building permits are required. there appears to be some difference in understanding as to that requirement. >> i raised that for the following two points. one is if dbi is reviewing it and it needs to be ada accessible, it would have to be at least 3 feet wide. the second and i am not sure -- the door now is the exit for two

fire escapes which then requires a calculation for occupant load that has to exit through that governs the width of the doorway. i was not quite aware when i was reading a brief that two apartment houses were fairly sizable. perhaps i should ask that of the building department. >> what is the term of this permit? is it revocable at 30 days? does it go on forever? >> it is revocable at the direction of dpw. >> dpw can decide to revoke and reopen the street? >> that would be correct.

>> knowing what you know now, did dpw recommend they can be opened permanently as a result of the print from 85 fax you kind of half recommended it during this time period. >> their specific issues from the applicant. one is as it relates to disability access for a variety of residents at this property. the other one is again the issue related to quality of life and various issues the applicant has submitted. there seems to be -- needs to be a balance in this case. it would add additional facilities that allow easy ingress and egress to be appropriate for the gate open during daylight hours which may or may not results of the

quality of life issues, that is something we can make a determination on. >> asked us -- access for emergency vehicles, is there a requirement for the lock box? >> the understanding is that this was reviewed by the fire department and police department. they have determined that this facility satisfies their needs. the department would take that piece of information that we received as this is accessible to these emergency service vehicles. >> i have a couple of questions. the intended use was not for people to load and unload items and have access.

someone from dpw advised intended use was for something other than that. can you speak to that? >> it deadends where exit points are provided. there is no fair repair. it is not a thoroughfare as it relates to public right-of-way. it does not appear to the department that people would use this as a doorway -- their fair -- thoroughare. -- thoroughfare. that appears to be what these

un [inaudible] and to provide access. >> no documentation that would limit the use of that l.a.? >> there is no limitations. >> the other thing is i would like to hear from the department on the chronology of the improper construction of the gate without a permit. if it came into being in december 2010 and here we are in july 2012, i would like to know from your view what happened. >> sometime in 2010 the department received a complaint from 311 of the structure. we dispatched an inspector. the inspector identified this gate constructed across colin

place and provided notice to the party owners -- property owners. remove the gate or acquire rights for the gate to remain in place. the property owner along jones street came to the department and informed -- explained the situation. at that point, wanted -- one of the initial recommendations, that was one week after the notification. within 30 days of the notice. the applicant did come to us and explained the situation. on initial review. we recommended -- if you want to close it and control that portion of the public right of way, it needs to be converted to private property. that was most appropriate. they had started that process

[unintelligible] -- so they could maintain their specific rights. this takes up to 18 months. we directed them to keep the gate open. it seemed appropriate. several months later, received another complaint to indicate what -- it was closed and locked. we went out there and we issued a notice of violation. at that point, the notice required them to acquire appropriate complete -- and complete the process. the applicant came back to us and inquired as to other similar

alleyways. there was an emergency order to temporarily gate off the right of way. they approached the department and presented documentation at that point for a permit to close this alleyway. we had requested additional information from the police department and the fire department that the request would be appropriate. we did receive that notification. we continued to process the permit. in the meantime we had a director's hearing to review the notice of violation the department issued. >> in april 2012?

>> that is correct. the hearing for whatever reason we cannot ascertain, the applicant did not show up to the hearing. the hearing officer to look at testimony, understood the situation as presented, made a decision of upholding the notice of violation with the caveat that if the permit is approved, a notice of violation would be reduced slightly. they did issue -- they did construct without permit. they did acquire a permit and paid the financial penalties associated with the violation and the department issued the permit. >> that was the penalty of $7,000. reduced to 2000. what about the time when that department was aware that they had done nothing between the first complete and second complaint? was that just waved?

-what happens is they did apply but it was taking so long that they kept waiting longer. >> one last question. if the alleyway is not vacated, it is still a public way. what about the curb spaces? is that in not legal parking space? >> -- a not legal parking space?

>> they department did make certain improvements. instead of a curb return, [unintelligible] those were installed to identify the trouble way and a driveway, was installed to allow vehicle access. >> that is not a parking space. >> correct. >> that is at the intersection of jones and colon. >> thank you. >> i would like to ask the building department a couple of questions.

>> i knew i stayed for reason. >> if this gates and its [unintelligible] is a fire exit for the two buildings, would it require certain permits from your department or a roof -- a review? >> when i read the brief and so the braves and saw there was a complaint and our inspector had referred it to dpw because it was in the public right of way, i thought to myself i am sure i have seen permits for this before. because when you think about it, we have structural issues with regards to the construction of the gate, her reviews that, we

have the exiting issues and accessibility issues, that is what the building department reviews on buildings all the time. this is on a city street across republic straight or a alleyway. -- across a public street or an alleyway. there are issues the building code needs to address and i am not sure if dpw has a plan to do that. i would imagine that there are building code issues that need to be addressed in this matter. with regard to being on the public way, we see other items where this is involved. i would be concerned about exiting. if there are people who need to get out of that building and they get to a point and the exit get smaller, the building code

must address that. maybe that needs to be wider than 3 feet. you do need 32 inches clear for accessibility issues. the minimum is 32 and their great need to be more depending on the number of people coming down into that area so yes, there are other points. >> thank you. >> the matter is submitted. >> let me first discuss where i stand on the permit itself and the gate. given the issues that were brought forth, i am supportive of the concept of the gate.

the qualifier is that date has to be accessible and it has to be per code for exiting purposes. if you look at the photos at the building in process, there are stairs immediately behind it. this building at best is probably accessible only through the lower level. i do not know of the elevator goes down to the lower level. from the street axis point of view, it appears the street is at the cusp of a percentage of wet iraq would be for accessibility. however, -- what a ramp would

be for accessibility. there should be allowable access and it has to conform to the code. i am supportive of the concept of trying to the gate and see if it reduces some of the problems. >> i would agree. we're trying to solve the two issues. the ability of residents to get in and out of that gate and use that entry and there were letters in the package from residents talking about the problems in the alley. i would be supportive of conditioning the permit making it accessible from and ada standpoint as well as meeting the requirements of the code. if this was a gate in an apartment building to a parking garage, it should meet the same requirements. as well as requiring the

adjacent property owners provide keys to all residents her request to use that entry and exit as the with the front door. -- they would the front door. >> i would echo the sentiments of my fellow commissioners. i do not know what we're going to need in order to get the ada compliance on the gate. it seems a necessity. i think -- i appreciate the comments made by the public speakers and the appellant in particular coming forward. i understand your health issues are severe and they should be accommodated. if the building itself is not accommodating, you have a problematic elevator and other issues. as far as what is before us which is the gate, i do not know if we need a continuance in order for this to be checked out

or if we can simply order it here and conditioned the appeal in a way that commissioner tell us -- hillis suggested. >> those accommodations are reasonable and would address many of the issues that the appellate raised. >> i think we should continue this on the following bases. that the building department can conduct its exiting and accessibility review because if there are changes to the construction as required, we can amend or conditions permit at that point in time with the requiring a new permit. -- without requiring a permit. -- a new permit. >> please come to the podium so you can be recorded properly.

>> thank you. i have a question. if the gates were true remain, can we have extended opening hours so i can have more help after 5:00 p.m.? i understand the gate is to remain at this point. i am asking if i can have extended our side can receive more help. -- so i can receive more help. >> since we have given additional time, with the permit holder like to respond? -- with the permit holder like to respond? -- would the permit holder like to respond?

>> i wanted to add that when lt. white signed off, it was my impression we were meeting all the emergency exit requirements. i don't feel like an answer for the owners if they would be open to extended hours. as i said earlier, it seems to defeat the purpose if we're going to leave it open all day. >> understood. >> perhaps i was not clear. i would be supportive of keyed access for all tenants that would have enjoyed access into the street. i'm not supportive of opening those gates that allows access for others. >> there is a motion to continue to allow time for dbi to conduct an exiting and accessibility review? i would suggest august 15 is a

good date for the board if that is enough time. >> you have a question on the process? >> one of the questions that came up that given this gate spans two properties, the building department might have an issue. as it relates to the permit. can the building department -- [unintelligible] so they would be paid [unintelligible] we're trying to identify a reasonable way to make sure that what you are suggesting. >> if that is -- acceptable to you, that is fine. >> is that a legal question? >> it is an issue of the work order. >> august 15 of that is acceptable to the department. >> move to continue this case to

august 15. >> no additional briefing, just airport? -- a report? >> we have a motion from the vice-president to continue this matter to august 15. the public hearing has been held. to allow dbi to conduct a review of accessibility issues. permit issues as well? permitting issues? >> accessibility and exiting issues. >> and exiting issues. >> on that motion to continue, president hwang, aye, commissioner hillis, yes, commissioner hurtado, yes,

commissioner fung, yes. president hwang: we would like to take a five minute break.