storefront, is the largest differential between the store and the sidewalk, correct? >> correct. that is 11clement st. we have reduced the steps so it would be 5 inches there. if somebody walks out that door, unless we close it off, there would be a nine-inch step and that is higher than is allowed by code. we need to plan for future use of that space at this time with the sidewalk, i think. if the tenant moves out and they need a different tenant, we have an issue there. commissioner hillis: right. you can always come back for that approval. what you are asking for is to put a rather long gate in the middle of the sidewalk. if you do not need it -- i think it is pretty drastic in this case, accommodating some entry

into the storefront. you do not need it because those storefronts are merged. >> i would have to look at that to see what would be the impact of reducing that. it would potentially mean that that would be a difficult sport -- a difficult storefront to rent in the future. commissioner hillis: it is rented now, correct? >> yes. if it became vacant. commissioner fung: the department letter of response is based on -- >> they did a letter based on the same design your looking at now. commissioner fung: and they indicate that your cross slope is in excess of city standards. >> correct. commissioner fung: do you concur

with that? >> yes. commissioner fung: then that design is not an appropriate design. based upon the directions from this board. the difficulty in getting that across slow occurs -- that cross slope occurs because of the differential elevation between the store on the left and the store on the right to. what happens if you were to warp it for two doors and went to a split with some kind of a planner or something else? that would reduce the cross slope, would it not? >> i think i understand what you are asking.

even if we did not have an entrance to a 11 clement st., we would still need to have this worked sidewalk -- warped sidewalk with these slopes. the cross slope is going from the entrances of seven and nine clement, and you go down 4.2% from there and it drops down radically to 14% at nine clement and at 7 clement, i think it is 11% smoke. that is 4 feet from the sidewalk to the curb. commissioner fung: the slightly different alternative, conceptually it may work. at 7 clement you create a split

sidewalk and design it so there is a -- there is something that addresses the elevation difference and then warp the sidewalk at the other doors. is that possible? >> i am not sure i follow that. only at seven clement, there would be a split level sidewalk? commissioner fung: that is correct. >> but it would also need to have that at 9 clement. once you start at the curb, you go up towards the building and that is where we are running into problems. we would have to make up about 5 inches from what is on the existing kerr of to the current step. there is already a 3% slope in the sidewalk.

it is the only way we can get up from the curb to the floor level of seven and nine clement, is to have these excessive slopes for the first 4 feet or so. commissioner fung: maybe we should hear from the department and then i can rephrase the question. >> ok. thank you very much. >> actually, we will hear from the appellant next and then the department. >> good evening, commissioners. i do not know what to say because i was as puzzled by what i was given about one week late. . i did not know how to respond. i also received, and just as i

walked in, the response from the department saying that his drawings were not acceptable. we are back to square one and i do not know what to tell you. my view has always been the problem should be solved inside the stores. there are lots of stores that have raised flooring. here is a picture of the entryway down the street. is that not showing? it is a recessed entry and this is 55 clement, just down the street. i imagined it is not quite as slow as -- as sloped as the permit holder location. we all have these recessed entries with a little bit of a slope that brings you into a

raised floor. i do not understand why that is not a viable solution. his analysis also shows that the ramp inside 11 clement is $4,000. i do not understand why it would not be $4,000 or one of the other stores. i do not understand the analysis. i guess we are back to square one. and i definitely am a fan of the ramp outside and split sidewalk. i think you have a better view of what is code and what will work here. none of these solutions seem to work for me. commissioner hillis: you have a retail store front? >> yes. there are only three owners on the spot. mr. silveand the other

owner is not here tonight. there is this really big 1-11, which is about one-third of the block, almost half of the plot. -- of the block. i have a property and there is another down the street. most of them have these recessed entries. just because of the history of the building -- commissioner hillis: if you look at the 1908 plans, which was included, the building was originally built to have the recessed -- >> i do not know what happened. i know that there was some remodeling. there was also some granite across the bottom. i cannot rememberthere have bee,

and getting into them has always been a step up. with 11 clement, that is almost a moot point. i do not know how long the lease is, but 11 and nine have been combined. that could be addressed at some future point. i was kind of taken aback with the department response. mr. nathan's drawings -- i guess we are back to square one. thank you. >> good evening. department of public works, bureau of mapping. in originally reviewing this design, i am referring to the

sidewalk design. short of the applicant doing any modifications within the building, and for obtaining a variance from the building department, such as an automatic door -- currently, the doors are at the property line. and they swing in word. according to the ada, that are required to have a 4 foot landing at no more than a quarter inch per foot out to the sidewalk. to maintain the path of trouble. we allowed a half-inch across a slope, 4.2%, within that path of trouble, leaving several inches over the last 4 feet by the curb. our main concern -- we have allowed in certain parts of the city, where you have either loading zones for a red zone fronting the property, where there is no real pedestrian access -- we have allowed that

last for feet to slope sometimes up to 10%. but in this case. -- in this case, as was mentioned originally, because the cars here park diagonally, that 4 foot section adjacent to the trees and parking meters is used by pedestrians to access the sidewalk. for somebody to access the sidewalk with cross loads ranging from 11% to 14% -- the department felt that was unsafe, basically. that was taken into account that my initial meeting with mr. nathan, the architect, which is why we felt that the original split level side what design was the best approach, based on the fact that this building did take up, as was testified, approximately half the block.

and you have four different tenant entries. it is not a ramp, perce. -- per se. it is a continuous ramp. it does not serve just one property. if someone walking on clement street wanted to continue down that ramp, it would be fine. it would work. that is where we are today. commissioner fung: based upon the letter, it indicates a cross slope of around 10%. i guess i was trying to see if there was some way -- if we cannot handle the complete warping of the sidewalk across

the building, is there a way to reduce the split side walk, so the impact of this and the way we can treat that -- perhaps there is a better way to do with this. >> we would definitely consider something. i wrote the letter that was signed by mr. kwan. we would consider -- right now, the current design that was approved had these put levels leadfoot at 8 foot 8 inches wide. basically right up to the edge of the tree wells. we would consider a narrow width of the split will sidewalk, still living today -- split level sidewalk, still living -- still leading a pack of trouble. it would be a split level

sidewalk within that 8 feet 8 inches, 5 feet wide or would ever is required for ada with that in access, with a wind design. the remaining portion, 4 feet minimum, would remain as the existing sidewalk for those that wanted to walk through. we would consider that. >> i -- commissioner hillis: i guess my concern is the 3 ft. 8 in the middle of the sidewalk. clement street is a vibrant commercial corridor. >> that was taken into account during my first visit to the site. commissioner hillis: we saw some pictures were this was done before, it down on fisherman's

wharf. there are huge variances. this does not have a lot. it is a pretty modest sloped sidewalk. for this to be a solution, my concern would be a solution throughout the city. we have dates in the middle of the sidewalk, where pedestrians are walking. it is wide, but it is not that wide to have that gate there. i would like to explore other options, including the property owner taking some -- like the appellate said, doing it inside. the ' 08 drawings show that vestibule. i think this is kind of -- >> you are absolutely correct. short of doing something within the building, we could still

allow some more been in the sidewalk. we do it all the -- some warping in the sidewalk. we do it all the time if a building is to take up 3 inches to bring it out into the sidewalk. 3 inches over a 15 foot sidewalk is a piece of cake. we have done that all over the city. if it is done right, you cannot even tell. based on the current design of the building, where the doors are at the property line, even though they swing in word, that still requires the 4 ft. lyndon -- four foot landing. you are taking up approximately 4 inches in the last 3 feet. commissioner hillis: people are walking down the street, looking

at the storefront, not necessarily looking at what is in front of them. who is liable for an injury that happens? >> it would be the building owner. under the minor encroachment, the city is fully indemnified. commissioner fung: one last question. based on your experience, if the design introduced planters adjacent to the doorways, would that assist, similar to the way -- i know that is a minor encroachment. >> i hear what you were saying. basically, what would be required is if you use the minor

encroachment, as noted in the code, you are allowed to encroach 25% of the sidewalk with. that would give you a 3.5 ft. encroachment into the sidewalk to game 5 inches. that would require some type of variance from the building department. commissioner fung: that, to me, would be preferable over a split sidewalk. >> that would most likely require an automatic door opener and a variance from ddi -- dbi, not having to have the level landing. commissioner fung: yes. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, the matter is yours. commissioner fung: i would like to ask a final question of the architect.

following along the same line of thought, speaking with the department representative -- i was trying to find a solution that would reduce the amount of split sidewalk. it appears, based on your analysis and their analysis, that it is going to be difficult to totally eliminate it. the question is whether we can reduce it. do you see any ways that could be accomplished? >> actually, yes, somewhat. at 11 clement, as you saw, in the warped sidewalk idea -- commissioner fung: actually, we

did not see your drawing. we never received it. >> i have it here. commissioner fung: i never saw this. i am sorry. please proceed. >> at 11 clement, we reduced the step in the warped sidewalk so it is only 5 inches. we were able to do that because that portion of the building was raised up. that is like the low-hanging fruit. we do not have to lower the floor joist and cut into the floor there, because that floor was raised up at some later time, apparently. that is also why, if we were to change the floor inside of seven and nine, that would be more costly to alter.

we could reduce the length of the split level sidewalk where it is at 11 clement street, so that it is somewhat shorter, at least. commissioner fung: at that store front? >> at that store front. before, it was going up 9 inches. it would only have to come up perhaps 5 inches. so it would be four feet shorter down there. commissioner fung: that would put the split sidewalk in front of the two store fronts, 9 and 7 clement. roughly. >> well, actually, i was suggesting its still cover up 11 clement too. it is possible there could be some other compromise. i would have to look at it and discuss it with the department of public works and my client.

commissioner fung: actually, you know, i am leaning toward asking you to compromise even further. to have some partial cut into the storefront. maybe not fully. i am willing to accept the compromise there in order to reduce the split sidewalk. president garcia: reduce or eliminate? commissioner fung: i do not think he will be able to eliminate it. president garcia: can there be a combination where a burden is borne within the building to get the walked down to what is accepted by the city. what is it? 5%? commissioner fung: 4.2%. president garcia: i would like to see a combination of you take pain -- you would be paying

less. some of the pain would be absorbed because i think some of the warping at 4.2% is less than the warping at 10%. >> we did do that at 11 clement. we are cutting into 11 clement, or we would have to to put a ramp inside. commissioner hillis: 11 clement is the one that has been combined. >> correct. commissioner hillis: that was what i was expecting to see, based on commissioner comments in the last meeting -- some combination of looking at both the warping and interior modifications, and even doing away with the 11 clement -- to see if we can come up with a way to avoid the split sidewalk and the gate solution. >> so, the biggest issue is, i

think, having the level landings. once you have to cut into the store, you end up having to have a level landing inside the door, and some sort of a slope up. so there is a fair amount of cost is involved in doing that part of it. commissioner hillis: is that what i heard? you could get possibly a variance from dbi, which i think they would be inclined to do, as opposed to some of the modifications to the public realm and the sidewalk area. >> i do not know how they would rule on that. one more reminder. this is a barrier removal project. we were looking for what would be most cost-effective, something that is readily achievable for the property

owner. that was why we came up with the direction that we had. once we start to go into the stores, there is not just the cost of construction, but the loss of rent and other aspects that makes it less usable. commissioner hillis: i definitely appreciate that. but if you have traded that for a barrier in the sidewalk -- i consider that a public space. it is a trade-off between those. commissioner fung: i think that comment is correct. what i do not want to see -- by the way, let me back up. we fully support that both the sidewalk and the access should

be ada accessible. the problem with doing split sidewalks is if we do it here, it becomes done elsewhere. i would rather find better solutions than have these split sidewalks all over the city. i can understand where they are on a hill, in certain instances , splitting between a sloping sidewalk versus steps to accommodate the slope. in this instance, there has got to be a bit to solution. and it may involve a little pain for your client. but i think that is the direction i would lean toward. i am asking for what you would recommend, based upon that type of approach. president garcia: in other

words, the new elements would be to avail yourself of whatever variances are out there, take some pain so as to reduce the impact on clement street. i think you are clear on that. reduce the impact as much as possible on the sidewalk. some combination would take those elements into account. >> ok. i can look into it, yes. president garcia: are you in any way prejudiced by the delays we keep causing to this? i mean is your client still able to operate until some solution is reached? >> i have not received any update from my clients. i assume we are able to continue working with this. president garcia: i mean, he is not out of business while all of this is being resolved. >> no.

commissioner fung: would it make sense to give you a little more time to digest what we are saying and see if you can come up with something a little more creative? >> certainly. i do not know if we can continue the matter and we can talk to the client and see whether there is some -- commissioner fung: our next meeting is not until april 11. president garcia: but you would be free to take pretty much all the time you need, as long as it is not a violation of an ada regulations costing you or your client money. >> i see. that would give me a little bit of time to study the options, run it by the department of public works. it involves city planning and department of building inspection. there are multiple agencies. we would have to see what it costs and come up with an

alternative solution, if that is the direction you want to give to me. >> i want to caution you that the april 11 calendar has 10 items on it already. it is full. president garcia: it would be pretty quick. >> we might be better off having it in may, so we can take some time to sort it out. president garcia: do you want to do call of the chair? do you want to give them some date in may and let them alter that date if they feel it is necessary? >> i always prefer to have an actual date. commissioner fung: 99? -- may 9? and perhaps the department can assist you. i am sure they have a lot of experience to approach this, based upon the sort of parameters we insisted on today. >> i will avail myself of those resources. commissioner