i've been banging my head on trying to convince them. it makes more sense and is more attractive and you could landscape this area and pave it and maybe widen it a little bit. taking a 15 foot sidewalk up here makes no sense whatsoever and it's unfair to the matulas and not legal. >> thank you. mr. brand, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> a sidewalk that close to the house there would be no

turning radius so that's r just not foing to happen. that's not the intention at this point. whatever happens with that will be way in the future because karen's planning on fibbishing this project and selling it. it is true. he's been trying to sell it for a long time now. hard to sell when you don't have access to it. doctor shoe said there'd been a bait and switch. we floated a whole bunch of ideas for the neighbors on how to make that driveway fly. we wanted to get a driveway in there, we offered park, we offered extra parking for the downhill neighbors, ones who don't have down hill parking, well thought maybe that would get people intrepsed. interested. there was no bait and switch. the final application we made wasn't the same as five of those ideas we put out there because we couldn't apply with all of them.

yes, we were very clear we wanted a driveway. and the board of supervisors didn't deny the project unanimously twice. the fist time it didn't get out of the committee so it just tabled and also it's been approved by planning department, the planning commission, a lot of otherwise people have approved the design. any questions? >> can you address the temporary path issue? >> i don't know what happened with that. you have to get -- >> in other words, why isn't that an acceptable solution? >> why isn't that an acceptable splugs? solution? it's not permitable. the sidewalk is legislative. we can do a permit for that. anything that involves

negotiation with matulas died. >> no you may not. >> you have rebuttal if you care to use it. >> yes, i just want to make a few clarifying points. one, again, to reiterate what mark brand just said, there were no curb cuts permitted under the street improvement as part of this 15 foot wide sidewalk, thus, unless the future owners, unless the owner applies in the future to construct one, there is not one in the plans right now, nor is there one approved. with regard to the temporary path, commissioner wilson, my understanding in talking to our inspection staff who were inspecting the work in the

public right of way was that this path was constructed strictly as a construction path to get equipment to the site and our decision was if this is construction related it could be issued as a street space permit, however, prior to signing off on the project, whatever was constructed whether it was just ripping through some landscaping, that needs to be restored to its original condition before we seen off on the project. thus, at this point we're still expecting that that temporary path will be restored. as a matter of fact, i believe we conditioned the permit upon that. however, in talking to mr. william, just now, i mean, he informed me that they're willing to allow construction of it to address mark brand's point. yes, we can a allow this

under an encroachment permit, we can make it permanent, so to speak, provided he gets consent from the two neighboring properties. in this case consent is required because it's something that's not constructed to city standards. the 15 foot wide #150id walk is proposed per city standards, thus no consent is required, it's already legislative sidewalk. for this additional path consent would be required from the conjoining property owners. if that is obtained we can issue that as a minor encroachment permit. i have nothing else to add. any questions i'd be glad to answer. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> quite a history lesson, commissioner. >> i'm not sure, my memory -- whether i made the comment that was a really long walkway on mountain spring. i remember the case but our review of it was predominantly on the parking variant, a little differently than the other entitlement hearings and appeal that is have occurred on this particular project. i'm not sure that i can craft any type of compromise here. it looks like people are pretty well entrenched.

the question then is whether legislative sidewalk done to city standards, whether that department ered in terms of their approval of that sidewalk permit and at this point i have nothing to say that it ered. so whether i'm backing into a technicality to take a position or not, i don't see any other basis for me to go on this. >> so that the other commissioners and the audience understands, when you said air and -- >> interpretation, yeah. >> exactly. >> i would tend to concur

with your response. >> it's too bad because i think the configuration of the temporary walkway access point makes a lot more sense, not as it allows them to be much more creative in dealing with landscaping and things around it, but i don't think that's going to fly given the consent requirements. >> you look like you're poised to say something. >> i'm just thinking. >> shall i make a motion? i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the sidewalk permit as issued was

cocompliance. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to up hold this permit on the basis it is code compliant. on that motion to up hole, president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> i. >> commissioner wilson. a: i. >> i. >> thank you. the vote is 4, zero, the permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. item 12 has been withdrawn so we'll move on to item 13 which is appeal number 14-176, jason blie versus department of building inspection. it's at 730 commercial street.

protesting the issuance on october 3, 2014 the cultural services center to add four riser stairs between 731 and 731 again and provide approved entrance facility to 731. >> could we take discussions outside, please? we have other business to conduct. >> new doors to match wood existing and include power door assist. we can hear from the appellant. again, we just ask those who are leaving the room to do so as quietly as you can please so we can move on to the next piece of business. >> ladies and gentlemen of the the board, jason blie. some of you will remember me from our many past

discussions and appeals over this property. it's unfortunate that we are here again. i'm very much hoping we are once again moving in the direction, never theless, we need to discuss the matter of why this appeal has come before you. to touch briefly the facts are in your packet but the overview, i'll say this started a year ago with the fact that the threshold for number 735 was removed prior to any approved permitting process for this. second i'll reference the missing pop up in the city's computer system over the fact that we have had an issue with this property and that permits have gone through without that. and most importantly, we come back to the center of this discussion, which is where are the drawings that show the removal of the garbage room from the front of the

building and the aluminum doorway, the replacement of the windows that make up the historic design of the building. that is where we concluded in 2012 with the agreement that was made as part of the decision of this board. and the other important things to cover quickly and my discussion here is the fact that the original wooden doors, the number 735 which there are pictures of in my brief are something that we were already denied the removal of them as part of the section 106 review for federal funding, which happened over a decade ago, the approximately $1 million in community block grant funds, which with your expended on this property. so here we are discussing the removal when it was said that the funding of this project was contingent on their retention. lastly, i've only received this copy of the brief yesterday at my request from

replace them with poer doors that are not the original doors and that's the huge shift of the restoration of it will property. >> we'll deal with it. >> mr. lee, we can hear from the permit holder. >> currently we're using

someone else's restaurant and it's all pro bono. by expanding to 735 we double the size of the training area. the areas of the door, we have no choice but to have accessible ada requirement and we're replacing one door. currently you have two doors

of equal with. the new door we have one slightly larger wider than the other one, but in terms of the facade, the area looking from the front area is identical, the same color, exactly what's exposed today. the bottom line is that we do need the space here and the funding comes from the city, the federal and of course i have a do nation. we've been here for 32 years and currently we have graduated over 10,000 students. today we have students standing behind me and i believe one will be speaking, with your permission, before your board. at this moment i'm going to ask engineer to come up here and he can show you more details in the plan and permit and what the exterior facade. i'm going to call up duke [inaudible] the engineer for the project. is that okay? >> yeah. >> yeah hi, i'm duke.

i was brought in just to solve the entry geometry of how you get sloping sidewalk and a ramp in and doors that gave improved accessibility. these are reduced plans so i'm not sure how they're going to show up. let's see. so over here is the existing entry, over here's the proposed . the proposed intriz with the unequal doors and a ramp up and a power opener since we can't do landings. and that's the set of doors we' talking about.

when i went in and talked with the historic preservation planner and asked him how he wanted the historic issue addressed we talked about a few things and what he said was that he thought the best thing was to instead of keep the existing doors, he thought the besz thing was to replace them with remly ka doors, replica doors that are unequal in size so that's what we got a permit for. so i'm available for any questions. you mind if i call students to speak. >> if that's how you wish to use your time, sure.

>> good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is kevin. i have come here today to discuss about the rewarding opportunity that i have stumbled upon because of charity cultural services scepter. i recently lost my job in june and i have learned that they provide tuition free culinary program, including bartending classes. i immediately signed up for the classes early august this year and notified that the classes weren't going to begin until september due to uncompleted construction work on that unit with the bar. i learned that the previous lessons were all head at far east cafe but the owner needed to open up the restaurant two-and-a-half hours early ahead to have time so that we can use the space. it was a torture for someone who needs to work late at

night. they expected the space allocated for bartending classes to be completed soon, thus made the decision to move the classes back to the center. when the classes finally started on september 22, which was fairly late compared to the previous fall cycles we found out our facility comprised of a temporary bar made of wooden planks on top of a table. we were told we'd move to the new bar when the project was funnished. unfortunately i granl waited at the end of november and the bartending class was still unfinished. i still learned how to mix dringzs but the setting and equipment wasn't there. i have wasn't able to get the complete satisfaction of making drinks. i understand there were concerns for protecting a

historical building but they don't have any intention of tearing it down or replacing it. they want to preserve the construction of the building by conducting repairs that are necessary and essential to making the building more functional and accessible for everyone, especially the disadvantaged clients they serve from the community. please allow them to complete the project as soon as possible. thank you. >> we have one more student. all right. >> you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> you'll have three minutes for rebuttal. >> and they can speak under public comment too. >> mr. tigue

>> this is just a bit of history discussed and in the brief that there were appeals before you several years ago and the board of appeals did rule at that time to acquire this property to state that the property owner agrees that if any work to the facade of the subject building following conditions shall apply and the conditions are essentially the removal of the garbage room or relocation and the doorway. the subject permit was reviewed by our head of historic preservation and was approved over-the-counter on september 30 of this year. in terms of the scope of

work it's kind of an evolution to figure it out because the actual permit itself on the front of the permit has one description. the planner and the approval box in the back of the permit elaborated a little bit to kind of clarify what the actual plans show. often the description on the front is a summary of what have the actual plans show and do not provide every detail. the two main parts to the project are the internal work to provide the connection between the spaces and the stairs, but i think the work that's real vanlt today is the exterior work and that consists of essentially keeping the same opening in the facade where the existing two doors existed for 735, but replacing them in kind with wood to the question before

you tonight, i believe, is whether or not that work consists would be interpreted and be the modification to the facade per the nsr that is recorded on the property and whether additional world would trigger the work laid out in the nsr. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> there was no option but to come mriel with the ada; is that correct, once the work was proposed? >> i'd have to refer to dbi on that. i don't think the permit was initiated at ada issues, it was due to their own private issues of expansion, but after they made that decision to go forward i do not know if the

ada became a requirement or not or how dbi handled that as a building code issue. #12k3w4r the building permit that i have of the permit details report [inaudible] between 731 and 735 and provide accessibility to 731, new doors to match existing and include power door assist. the building permit got filed on 30th of september, 2014, a form [inaudible]. it got issued on the third of october, 2014 and suspendsed because of the appeal on the 16th of october 2014. it was reviewed by our building plan check staff and i did get a quick look at the plans in the hallway earlier on there with the architect.

they weren't in the preef but he had them with him and it looks like it's an improvement for the brans, for the doorways to get the width on the door to pro#1r50id a power door operator that helps with accessibility and then on the inside there's a level change between the two tenant spaces where they're expanded and therefore they put in a stairway with striping and handrails. there wasn't any room for a ramp. it looks like a tight space. but certainly from what i saw it looks like it was properly reviewed. i remember being with this property a lot probably three or four years ago when we were dealing with it. i got a lot of education on the his rhode island and all the issues down there so to

say i know there's issues regarding preservation which are planning, but from building department point of view, and i heard the access obviously disabled access and getting disabled into the building is important. when that does happen we make sure if you're going to change the entrance, for example if the entrance is 5 feet and a lot of these old buildings, you've got two 30 inch doors, well, that's not wide enough for wheelchair accessibility so you have uneven doors. you put in a 3 foot and 2 foot door which is what happened here as the architect explained. that's standard procedure. once you get into preservation issues and what the materials are we leave that to the planning department and it looks like the entrance is being modified to meet accessibility requirement ls. that's ability all i have to

say if anybody has any questions. >> to chime off our president's question, so was ada required prior or did additional square footage trigger this requirement? >> no. i believe that was voluntary on their behalf to make this modification. i have don't have any enforcement from dbi. certainly there could have been the argument tect or mr. lee may knee to speak of it. i don't have anything with me tonight that point to a notice of violation or anything like that from dbi. that may have been someone that may have been their own choice to make it more act saysable. a lot of people do that. i don't have anything to say we made them do that. >> governmental grants require accessible facilities. >> there were some older ground that said to preserve it so i think i heard that

earlier as well. dbi did not initiate the work that i'm aware of. >> okay. >> can i see a show of hands how many people would like to speak under public comment. ? please step forward. . >> hi, i've been a [inaudible] since mid 2011. i received [inaudible] i was an employee for three years and during that three years in employment my family have been through a very difficult hardship and my family pray allot for a job [inaudible] and they provide me an