>> 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.

>> we will take public comment. anyone interested, please step forward. how many people are interested in speaking? >> by name is les silverman. we own the building on the same block, but on the corner. we have three storefronts the face clements' street. i want to support the appeal. i feel that the ramp and the fence represent a major alteration to the traffic on our block and will impact our retailers in a big way. we also have had to lower our rent for the three retailers in the last four years, three

years. because of the really poor economy, they are hanging on by a very thin thread. changing the dynamics of the bloc will change the traffic, most definitely. there is a lot of foot traffic. there is a lot of foot traffic in front of our buildings, and retailers depend on it. by putting a fence along the parking, people will definitely walked behind the car's on a very busy street. this will create liability for the city. a mother or a baby buggy gets run over, the city will be responsible for this because they allowed this ramp to be built. there is a high school right around the corner and every day at 3:00, a port of children, they are not young children,

they are teenagers, come pouring out of the high school. they will hang out on this fence. this will impact our retailers and the landowners. they won't be able to move the people, other retailers won't have to. it will be a big problem. the landlord doesn't one home to give up valuable square footage. i think that is the way to go, to lower the base of the four to the sidewalk level. there are better solutions, and i think they are better for the city and for us. we have had extreme problems with vandalism. we have put planters in front of each store and they have been vandalized eight times. they have been broken and destroyed.

we have also had a lot of graffiti. thank you very much. >> any other public comment? we will move into rebuttal. three minutes. >> i just want to show you a picture of -- i appreciate the solution, it looks good on paper, but this is the reality. this is the corner looking down. this railing would be right here. the parking is generally skewed towards the other corner, which is a bus stop. i am on this corner three or four times a week. i see the traffic, i see people getting out of cars, i drove my

mother round when she needed to get out with a walker. i know what it is to try to get somebody out from behind two or three cars, she was very tentative about getting a card out anyway. this is one picture looking down, looking west. this is the property. when i talk about iran and a slow, this is looking east. my property is right here. this grant is going to end right here and it will be fairly steep. i will end up with the debris rolling into myspace. this is what happens. the bins get taken in. i did not say anything about these been staying outside. a matter of them rolling down or getting kicked over by kids or whoever is, that is an issue.

as you can see, this was the most egregious problem. this entrance, no. 11, it is no longer being used. they have rented the space that used to be no. 11. there are only two entrances at this moment. they can combine that into one large store and you have a smaller problem, you don't need 60 feet of concrete rolling down. the foot traffic, if it is like an owl, we are trying to increase. the comment about very little foot traffic is the issue right now that we're trying to get people to come to that part of the street. a thank-you. -- thank you. >> mr. nathan.

>> first, i would like to clarify the question that commissioner fung had about elevations on the curb. i think i understand the problem. in my drawing, i use the word poc, type of curb. that is the top of the curb for the sidewalk, not the street curb. so the big concern with putting ramps, it would cost many times more money than sidewalks outside. we looked at it and it is very expensive. it involves cutting out the

concrete foundation wall, modifications to store front doors, changes toglazing glazin, ramps with handrails. the spaces are very small. installing the interior ramps would involve closing the stores for a least a couple of weeks. there would be a permanent loss of usable rental space for the tenant and the landlord. we would have to get approval for the planning department because it is a building that is more than 50 years old. i think it will be upwards of he the thousand dollars or $100,000. remember, the owner doesn't want to do any remodeling, they just one of the -- want to do what's readily achievable. they don't have to do more than that. it is a concern if they can do

something less expensive and meets requirements. i want to comment that the refuse bins could be placed at the east end of the sidewalk. it can prevent the problems that they are talking about. sunday, it may be again be independent storage as it was before. we don't know how long the current use will be there. [chime] 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