do i still have 28 seconds? there is not actually a fence that will be proposed, it is a railing that is 3 feet high. some people may decide to go underneath the railing or over the railing to get to the sidewalk. it is not a wall or a fence. thank you. [chime] president garcia: i was unclear about this, i'm asking you, mr. nathan. the doors open to the inside or the outside? >> of the doors open inward. >> not that it is going to be the solution, but it would not be an issue? they are not fixed so they can open to the outside?

>> we would not want them to open outward. it is building code and special sidewalk permits. president garcia: i must have misunderstood what you said. >> can i follow up on his comments? right now, the only businesses operating, you have combined the two spaces. you don't have the 9 inch problem, just to 9 inch problems. -- two five-inch problems. >> it would involve permanently having 11 clement, combined with 9 clement, having -- >> we can come back and revisit the issue. right now, we're talking about

-- how long is the railing? railing in areas that at this point, we don't need if you can solve the problem through warping a sidewalk. the former bookstore has now been combined with the other. >> that is correct. >> originally the building was five storefronts. it seems like a more elegant solution to this given that the facts have changed and there is no occupant of the third the store. >> it is occupied, but combined with -- actually it is 9 clement and 11 clement combined.

>> from the department of public works again, you have seen me in my discussion, they will also be an evaluating what can and cannot be done. for the commission perspective, the remainingç doors, the areaf sidewalk replacement would match the construction grant in terms of the square foot area because of the ramp requirements and the extension that they need to do that they normally wouldn't. ultimately, the department received this request from the applicant and we worked with them to come up with a solution that would satisfy the public works and the needs of the applicant. we believe that we should have

done it properly. one suggestion by the department, should the board upholds the department hosea approval with a request that it be shortened to slightly under 5 feet or slightly over 5 feet. it can provide all of the code requirements and require a 42- inch railing instead of a 36-and trailing -- 36-inch rea ailing. i am ready to answer any questions you might have. president garcia: what is before us, the cost of this to the property owner would be about

$23,000 or $26,000? >> i can speak to the construction cost, it is left to the applicant working with the various contractors if that is the suggestion. president garcia: i guess i am asking you if that sounds like a reasonable figure? if it got down to economics, we have to weigh 23 26 or the impact against the 100 to -- in this case, the applicant. the other question i had that you may not be able to answer, the approximate cost of what has been suggested by commissioner hellis. do you have any idea what that might be? >> because the based upon certain city contracts, the bids

that we have are approximately 10 to $12 of sidewalk replacement in this case and we're dealing with about 500 square feet. then you need to put in the railing and the associated work, so it is within the ballpark. president garcia: warping would be pretty close in price to what is proposed? >> based upon the square footage, it will be approximately the same about a sidewalk that would need to be replaced. you will be replacing from property line to curbside. >> on the warping, i remember prior testimony from you that the department had already determined that it is not

really -- it could potentially create an additional hazard rather than serve to -- >> the warping is a very inelegant solution. it will be flat and then you immediately start ramping down. you want to form a v. they will be going up and down accordingly, immediately along the threshold of the entry area. since the sidewalk ramps away from the threshold, they will be walking at a slant. it creates different issues for pedestrians. >> one more question. when you looked at the property and came up with a solution, was the third store occupied as a

separate store? was a combined at that time? >> my understanding, it was the checker that was on site. his understanding was that all three thresholds' and 03 doors were going to be used at various times. >> id has changed. if you went out there with two doors at the threshold were operational, they are combined with the bookstore. would you still recommend the long route? or would you try to come up with a smaller footprint for the solution? >> one thing that we need to a knowledge is that currently it is not being used and ultimately, the doorway, if it is determined that it is going to be reused, it needs to be accessible.

in the future, they will need to come back potentially and do additional work, specifically. it is what the applicant and evaluates as it relates to the accessibility requirements and the lawsuit under way. president garcia: and as it relates to the concerns of other people in the area. >> that is correct, sir. >> in the matter is submitted. >> i can start. >> go ahead. >> to respond to a couple things, the -- i'm not convinced

from the statements made that the proposed ramp will affect their business, i am not sure about that. i am not sure that it will create additional vandalism. i am in agreement that a solution that affects the sidewalk from an urban design point of view -- in san francisco with all of our hills, this kind of approach were you have a bifurcated sidewalk with different means of movement usually occurs on the hills where one side wanted to match the curve at the hill and to be able to create a walking surface, they created status. i hadn't realized that there were instances where it was being done and for ada

purposes. this particular approach is one i'm not sure i'm in agreement with. haute is the approach of one shoe fits all. a 5-inch differential from finished floor to sidewalk just requires to meet ada about five feet. what you have been between doors, it is more than double that. what you have between the edge of the building to the edge of the sidewalk, you have more than double that. if one chose to work of the sidewalk, they will be able to do it to the point of probably a little bit less than 5%.

i am in agreement with the department that we don't always want to see valleys and slopes on the sidewalks. i'm not sure 5% is all that unnoticeable as compared to being on a hill and having to cut that out. when i made the statement earlier about one shoe fits all, i think i would have taken the approach. it could have been to of the doors that could have been handled by working -- warping the sidewalk. the greater one might have required a combination of warping and cutting in. cutting into the space creates two problems. not only can you lose square

footage potentially, but also, the amount of space that you door swings in, it requires a flat space behind it. or you can swing out there. the combination of the two, a partial warping and partial intrusion would reduce the amount of square footage lost. i think it could have been a solution. i am prepared to not support the sperm as it is currently written. -- support this permit as it is currently written. >> i appreciate your thoughtful analysis.

based on what i've heard today, i am more inclined with the modification that was discussed by the department and the mayor's office to do the ramp. i think the accommodation needs to be reasonable. i think this is a challenging situation, and with the department having worked with an understanding the conditions, i would be more inclined to uphold with the condition. it greatly appeal with the condition as articulated by the department.

>> i think i would agree with commissioner fung. i don't think we have enough information on the alternatives to make the best decision and allow what i think is a permanent impedimenta on the sidewalks. this is not a big hill, this is a slightly modest bounce low -- downslope. they will show the picture of the railing here to get more of these throughout the city. i would like to explore other options, whether that means continuing and allowing them to come back or supporting commissioner fung in granting the appeal. president garcia: i tend to

agree with commissioner hillis and commissioner fung. i don't know if it would apply if reapplication could be made, but i would be wanting to look at possible other solutions, some of which have been raised here tonight. i would like to be better informed. i will assume that whatever action is being taken by government with ada is stayed. your obviously seeking a solution and until that this happened, i can't imagine it will have any bearing on the lawsuit.

>> i believe it is a private lawsuit, it is not a government action. >> and the parties involved are private but it is being held in federal court. it is an ada issue. it is under the americans for disabilities act. >> i assume you would prefer us to continue this than to uphold the appeal? >> continuation might be a good idea. president garcia: i think it is a real good idea. mr. nathan, i'm sorry, i do have a question. how long do you think you need to come back to the school with

some more information? >> 30 to 60 days. >> the concept is not that difficult to run past bsm. we have a meeting february 29. >> we have to items that are going to have a lot of public involvement on that night. >> you want us to work out of options with the department of public works, and what we also involve the appellant as well? president garcia: always a good idea. >> and come back with something where we can hopefully find some consensus. i have to communicate with my client and we have to get cost information.

with the proposal, i don't have specific cost data. those are all of the things that you want us to bring back? >> there are not that many options here. i am thinking only one option besides the two you have done, which is to warp the sidewalk. >> warping the sidewalk would only solve the -- it wouldn't solve the entrance for 11 clement street. >> my last comment on that was in could be that one of the doorways may have to have a combination between warping and recess. >> or given the current

condition where you only have one tenant, you don't have to improve it at this point. when the time came, come back and reapplied. i also recommend getting planning involved because they have done a lot of work on sidewalks of late. to the extent there is an internal solution, but i think they can give you a quick input. >> commissioner garcia mentioned pricing. i don't have any questions on that. what is it that you want them to do? >> and don't cook the books on may, but if it is onerous, it might affect my personal decision to find out that it is costing even more than $100,000

because you seem to think that is the only solution. i don't disagree, but i would like to consider the other option. what it would cost to flatten the floor and the costs involved in that. if it is $100,000, i might go the other way. that is why i am interested in what the cost would be. even though other commissions might not be so -- what date did we think was best? >> march 21 would be the easiest for the board. president garcia: i move that we continue this until march 21. i guess the permit holder in this case will come back to us with greater information to help us decide this issue.

>> would you like to articulate a said middle briefing? -- submittal briefing? president garcia: i would like to have as much information as possible. i would pray that what ever they submit, you would work out the details to what you want for simultaneous -- >> we should articulate that. i would recommend if you want six pages of additional briefing with unlimited exhibits, i would have the permit holders of at first -- firstholders to first submit. >> ok.

we have a motion from the president to continue this matter to march 21. the public hearing has been held and it is to allow the permit holder to pursue other proposals. additional briefing is allowed at six pages per party. it is due to thursday's prior. appellant are due one thursday prior. of that motion. the vote is 3-1. this matter is continued to march 21. president garcia: we will take a sh >> welcome back to the february 8 meeting. dr calling item #6, loren

palmateer vs. maria virag. system for testing the issuance of of wireless and box permit. -- of the wireless xbox permit. please step forward. you have five minutes. >> hello, my name is lauren. just to give you an idea of what we are discussing, that is an antenna. i am an electrical engineer, and i'll live in the neighborhood, and i was asked to look of the data, and we did a hearing, and

we went to do over appeal, so i am trying to gather my thoughts. it seems to be the feeling i am appealing on health issues. i know you cannot smelrestrict d and and not based on health issues, so i never talked about -- you cannot restrict based on health issues, so i never talked about. he helped us through the process, and we paid $300, and i see they were to respond by

february 2, so natasha is representing, and she has e- mailed me on the planes that were addressed in this appeal, so she clearly addressed complaints, -- the point, and i thank you. they were complete, and i would like to congratulate them for being able to put up the antennas. i wish i was in the spot. engineers love the data, so what

i requested was seven through 10, which is a request for data. if there was no response specifically addressed to dpw, so since i did not received a response, it is up to you, but i am asking for a government or of delay, a continuance. i think that is your choice. you know these items better than i do common -- than i do, and i think maria would like to speak. 5 i think lauren has a little more to say. i live in the neighborhood. there are bunch of people who signed the petition, so it is not only three of us. i would like to request of

measurement for the dwelling and for the time frame, and i really do not understand why the three antennas, because we already have one. there is going to be one across the street, and at&t is planning another one on the building again, so i have no problem with the mobile phone. i call my mom very little times i have all lost cause, so i think it is completely fine. we are happy with the reception, and i just want to mention, the only protest, and i want to say one more thing.

we have another antenna, and i am saddened about the fact but they build an antenna near the school without informing the parents, and at the playground, where a lot of kids go, and i think it is like an open area, so it is very hard to protest something like this, but i think you want to say something more? >> if you would address the board, because we have trouble understanding view. >> that is what i want to save. -- to say. >> i hope it was clear. if it was