>> can anybody else speak for me? can i share my time? >> yes, you can share your time. go ahead. >> commissioner, to your question, did we contact the other parties? the answer is yes. my wife phoned mr. flynn's office and hawthorne/stone and told them we would be available to discuss the gate. and it's not that we're opposed to the gate. it's that unfortunately, we no longer trust mr. flynn. every time he has done something he has made it worse. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from you if you have more from hawthorne/stone, you have three minutes' of

rebuttal. >> well, the backdoor to the building has handicapped access, because years ago there was a massage parlour in the basement and they had wheelchair access, before the gate, before all of that. so there was a ramp and wheelchair access. there used to be a little bar -- well, it's still there, but it's not activated because of security. there used to be a push bar that people would hit and it would just open the door on a hydraulic. i think, in my opinion, i think mr. flynn is willing to work with anyone that wants to have adjustments within reason.

i think that hawthorne/stone is willing to work with anyone. i know that we have constant issues with the large-sized building. there is always repairs done and we kind of pride ourselves in getting things fixed right away. people get action right away in our building. and so with the issue with the gate, i think within reason, i think people can come to some terms and have -- i believe since everyone has keys i believe it should be locked 24/7. that is my opinion. i know mr. chazan said something about being locked out of the gate for a month on time. there was a manager that put these padlocks -- had a slide bar on it and i remember there was a padlock put on the bar, because people were parking in

the alley. and i know it was an issue for a few days. that is what i can recall. i don't remember months at a time anyone being locked out, because if anyone was being locked out of the building and the alley, i don't believe would go on for as many months and i been accused of perjuring myself and i'm telling my truth. this is my truth. this is my side of the story. everybody has a side of the story. and you know, i will say it again, in my opinion, i don't really know how the gate was installed. i don't know anything about the permits. all i do, is keep piece in the building and keep it clean. there are a lot of things to maintain, you know ? if i neglected it, when it first came in there it took me months

to clean that building, but i'm not complaining. i'm just saying that the building is in good shape. that is it. >> you know why the gates don't work? >> do you know why the gate is not working now? >> yes. >> in my opinion, i haven't experienced the slide bar. there is a slide bar that i think if you lift the two bars from the ground first, it kind of throws it off. but i'm not sure about the slide bar. i know the gate was opened this morning. it's probably closed tonight. i know it has been opened and closed everyday on time. but if there is an issue with the slide bar, i think it's about the weather right now. i have issues with the front door, the front gate all the time because of the rain and the wind. it does something to the mechanisms. it does something to the bar

and i think probably wd-40 on the bar, but it hasn't been brought to my attention. this is the first i'm hearing about the bar not working. so unless it's brought to my attention, i respond to things right away. it's just my nature. i want to be able to go to sleep at night and fall asleep. i don't want to have things on my head. so if there is a problem with the bar, this is the first i'm hearing about it. >> thank you. mr. flynn, you have three minutes' of rebuttal. >> can you wait to speak until you get to the microphone -- you can speak at the microphone. it's part of your rebuttal time? >> it's to help answer the question about the gate that was brought up.

it is working now, perfectly fine, the pedestrian gate, i took a photo of it at 4:00 this afternoon. if you open the gate to bring in a car, which is illegal there. there should not be any car access to the alley. that is the purpose of the gate. so opening the two pieces of the gate to open it up to allow the garbage trucks to come in, since they took the lower bar off, there is a an issue being resolved now. there is a redesign to strengthen the gate to make up for that bar being removed, but the pedestrian side of the gate works perfectly well. >> thank you. >> my name is tracy and i'm the on-site manager for 642 and here to represent the residents there. many have let me know about their concerns about the gate. they have always questioned why this appeal is still going on and why we still have this hearing and i tell them we still have to figure out what

is going on with the ada compliance and make sure everyone agrees. a lot of them those who live on the alley side if they left a crack open to get ventilation into their unit, and walk out, there is the possibility of robbers, homeless broking into their unit and leaving before they find out. the reason why these tenants are concerned about the gate being taken away, they don't want their belongings stolen from them and to have proper ventilation since their windows are right on the alley. thank you. >> that pretty well covered it. you know, chuck coveredt door

that goes into the other building for the massage parlour, we can make it ada compliant and design it and it would work fine, but i was never aware that was a requirement for residential apartments. so that is a pretty simple thing to fix. if you open it up and open two doors at once and jam it, i am sure you can get it to jam if you work at it. it works pretty flawlessly and well-engineered. there is no parking in that alley. it's for emergency vehicles, fire trucks and safe vehicles. so for people to pull in and park their cars there for loading and unloading, that was never the intent. and that does keep the people out of boeing, so it's a health and safety issue is why i put it up in the first place. thank you. >> are you saying that the construction on those gates and

the door is finished? >> it needs to be inspected by the department of building inspection? >> have you requested final inspection? >> yeah, but since we got this appeal, they want to wait until it's done. we need to get dpw out there. really the main thing left is the grade. we need to adjust the grade and that is dpw, but we were told to hold off until this is done. so we stopped all work on it, just because of that reason. >> okay. >> anything further, mr. duffy? >> the final inspection still needs to be done. it's my understanding that there is probably going to be something needed to be done to

secure a level landing at the gate, that would be accessible. the 3' gate. it's also going to meet opening pressure just like any door. so if there is some problems with the weight of the door, it has to have five times opening pressure with a kick plate on the door. so there are a lot of requirements that have to be met. i don't know why they are at with that. i don't know if it was stopped because the suspension and it might explain why a door isn't working properly. i can assure the board i suppose it has to meet accessibility standards in the code. we will obviously with the appeal and stuff like that, this one we'll be paying extra special attention to, because there are obviously disabled people in this building. i would say it definitely has to get a final inspection.

>> mr. duffy, the door has to be operational. >> yes. >> even before final inspection occurs? as its constructed, it needs to be operational? >> that is correct. we weren't made aware that it was not operable. >> based upon a review by the department, the ada accessibility at that point is actually through the door, not through the gate. >> that is correct. i call it a "gate." it's the smaller gate. >> the door. the life safety egress from those go buildings come into the alley is through that door. that is where your calculations were based on occupant load. >> i saw that. the width is okay, that is why it's got the push bar. there was a pre-final done by

the inspector and met the architect and i spoke to building inspector ed green today. there was some confusion it was signed off, but it has not received final inspection from building. and i spoke to about mr. kwon and dpw still has to do review, but they can't do anything if it's under suspension? >> there review will occur after yours? >> exactly. >> i'm curious about the design and i'm assuming drawings were submitted or some type of showing -- some sort of rendering, aim correct? >> i think it's on the plans? >> in the rendering is there a bar underneath that suddenly

sawed-off. that is what is troubling offer after the filing of appeal the work to make it more accessible. >> i think the work was done without a permit and when you do work without a permit you don't do it up to code sometimes. >> i am talking about the existing gate. >> yes. >> so has there been no design change? >> in the plans it shows a door opening. it doesn't show a bar on the bottom. >> okay. >> typically, when you have a metal frame for a door, they put a bar there just to stabilize the two ends and it's meant to be temporary and to be

cut off after the door is installed? >> the doors would have to operate properly. >> right, it would have to be structurally designed in order to open and close, rather than the current situation. >> that is right. >> mr. kwon? >> if there was a bar on there, it wasn't permitted previously. they didn't meet accessibility standards. >> so a bar could be there, but it can only be a maximum of .5". >> that is correct, a .5" threshold. that is right. >> commissioners, john kwon from the department of public works once again. this bar, the lower bar on the bottom of the man door was identified during the minor encroachment permit process as part of the the appeal and identified it was an element that needed to be removed as part of the building permit. so that is why i inspector duffy stated i believe the permit was suspended prior to

them completing the job and i think that is where the hung up was. >> it was scheduled to be removed? >> it was not on the permit. >> but it was on the gate itself? >> yes. >> i must be missing something. was the gate there before with no change? >> that is the question i have to defer to the building department. >> i believe the gate that is now is partially in compliance with what we want. there was a bar on there on the original gate -- the bar must have gotten taken off before the permit was suspended or maybe after it got suspended. i don't know when. from what i am hearing and i haven't done a site visit, but i assume that the bar needs to be removed to meet code, but the job has not been finished yet. it could have a threshold. >> i mean, if we take as fact

what the appellant as stated that subsequent to the removal of the bar you have a problem with the way the gate works. so the gate was clearly not designed to be in use without that bar? >> that is right. >> that is what is troubling. so i just wanted to find out what your department has been doing and where they fit into monitoring this. because this is the second time this has come to us. >> right. >> and we still have got some problems. >> i think at the end of the day, when the work is completed to code, that will take care of the problems. we're not going to sign off on it until it meets the full provisions for accessibility. if it was put on without a permit originally, and that bar has to be removed. it probably should have been shown on the plans, but our inspector would not sign off

with the bar there. so they may need another permit to fix all of this. a revision permit. i don't know, that is up to them. but we certainly do not need a bar on there if it's more than .5" from the ground. it can't be. it's a tripping hazard and wouldn't meet accessibility codes. so once the permit is suspended, and there is no need for us to be there. there shouldn't be any work taking place. >> if it's inoperable, it's an issue. >> we need to get a complaint on that and we didn't. >> right. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> i think two of the agencies that have reviewed had have the expertise in what is code-compliant here both in terms of egress and in terms of accessibility for what is before us, which is the gate that is going across the alley. the question of why it does not work, if there is no communications between the people obviously, the maintenance side is not going to do it. if there is a design defect, it needs to be brought forth and the city needs to then tell them this is not working. there are two issues here that people have been skirting

around. one is the question of accessibility and i think from some of the comments it looks like it's also a question that is further beyond just the gate itself. that is one issue. the second issue is whether this gate is opened during the day or not and i believe that our last hearing when we made the conditions is that the gates remained opened as a transition until the permit is final. that is what i remember. >> until keys were provided? >> until keys were provided. right. i find that the keys have been provided. it has gone through review by the appropriate agencies for both life safety egress and in terms of ada accessibility. unit's

and it's a question of demonstrating to the city that they have designed and installed it properly so it's not jiggling around and not offset in its operability. i would support upholding the permit. >> i would concur. i mean i'm satisfied this is not going to be approved unless it's fully compliant with handicapped accessibility and any other codes. so i don't think there is another issue before us except the permit on the gate and i concur with commissioner fung. >> i already expressed my concerns about why it is that

we're even here today. and that is issues -- there is obviously lack of communication, and inability to respond to each other. and perhaps a fear that if communicated, no response would come and so it's a futile gesture. so that is a problem when you need to engage in this process with each other, with respect to handicapped/disability accessibility. and it will lead to only further problems if that doesn't happen. whether you get the gate in the design in the form, et cetera, or not. so i feel compelled to continue to monitor this issue. unfortunately, but in the one sense and that is that the job of the department, and it's the

job of the people who are affected negatively by it to communicate with the enforcement agency coming to this board with a list, i think is informative indirectly. but i think where there are issues that have to happen directly and if there are problems needs to be communicated to the enforcement agency immediately. especially if you can't get people to commit. i think that what is also forgotten, this is a public space. this is not owned by the owners of those buildings and that is the problem, i think, behind the difference of opinion here. this is a space of the public. and that is why we are here and if you wanted to close it off, you could have taken different steps. proper steps, which you didn't do, probably because it was time-costly and just costly and instead you went ahead and

tried to do that on your own and i find that deeply problematic. you tried to get around a process that does exist and you violated the rules and now when compliance falls on deaf ears, it's striking to me that we're here. yeah, i would like to have confidence that dbi is going to make sure that everything is done properly. dpw makes sure everything is level and that access happens. i want that to happen. it's got to happen. i mean it will only result in bad things for everybody here, whether it was the board that does anything or not. but i think what people need to recognize it's a public space. people can bring their cars into that space in order to pick up people and get their car out. they are not going to park it there. especially if you have to go to the hospital. so i find that

just very basic, fundamental issue that needs to sort of resonate with you all. because it's not going to change whether we make a decision here or not today. that it goes with you or goes against you. unfortunately i think this process is being used in a way that will not get the appellants exactly what the appellants want or need and i have to have hope that the city agencies here to enforce the codes will do it properly and have hope when it's not being done or there are further violations that they will be there to respond. so other than that, i don't think -- i don't think there is going to be enough votes to revoke, even if spirit i would like that to

happen. but i just wish that we don't -- these issues get resolved among yourselves, but if they don't, you have to rely on agencies for enforcement. we're not having a back and forth right now. >> i mean i agree. it is frustrating to see two groups of people month after month after month not being able to speak to each other about something that is clearly very important to all of the residents. to have this gate. for safety issues, for accessibility issues, it's very frustrating and instead of having this conversation in this forum, it would be much easier, it would seem to me. rather than going through this whole process with all of these people in the room to talk to each other and if there are

problems to call dbi and have dbi come out and dpw come out of the we can't go out there and do anything about the gate. i am concerned about the problems with the gate and accessibility, but we can't fix those things and to just come in here and say revoke the permit is not really getting us anywhere. so it's frustrating to see that there is not that ability to communicate on a very basic level. so i don't think the solution here is to revoke the permit either. all i can do is try to impress upon you what president hwang said to talk to each other and if there are problems to go to dbi or dpw and this is not the forum to solve those problems. >> did you make a motion? >> i will move to uphold the permit on the basis that it is code-compliant.

>> okay. there is a by the vice president to uphold the permit on the basis it's code-compliant on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> that motion is upheld and president hwang that concludes the business before this meeting. >> we're adjourned. [ gavel ]