Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 23, 2014 3:30am-4:01am PST

3:30 am
going to proshield with further piecemealing and direct this discussion towards how can it be brought back to the overall plan for the property and then we can look at if there are outstanding accessibility issues, how are they proper live dealt with, not one little bit by one little bit, but in the context of the entire property because had it been addressed that way from the beginning none of this would have happened. it would have been one review for one project. it would have been oekz how do you deal with accessibility for the whole building and move forward with one plan. that's it. i thank you very much for you attention and look forward to any further questions. >> i have a question. so as the appellant, you say we. who is we? >> we is me and all the other network of people who have supported this project. i haven't existed in a vacuum. i have in my personal
3:31 am
contacts over 1,000 people who are marked as china town and that's china town in the context of preservation and those are my friends and associates and people who have supported me all along throughout this. recently made this official into my own non profit. there's a board of people that constitute that as well who are various people from the community and within various- >> that answered my question. thank you. >> thank you. . >> mr. lee, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> commissioners, i have personally made the point to contact the appellant and said if there's anything we can do to get it on a larger scale, he mentioned the good point, where's the funding coming from? i staid you can get the funding i'll work with you for the overall picture, not just piecemeal. his idea was to refurbish the
3:32 am
entire facade of the building and again of course again, i spoke to him tonight. we worked again on it we take care of the entire fa facade in the near future. in this project we must move forward because the funding is fairly limited and the space is fairly limited for our graduates. tomorrow we have a graduating class of 20 people in the culinary area. they all come to participate and this culinary graduation runs parallel with the cooking school. credibility -- we have a 20 week training program and it's for graduates and classes tomorrow so i'm looking forward to the future of ccsc and appreciate your time. >> mr. lee, was any effort made to discuss this particular permit and its
3:33 am
scope with mr. blie? >> not exactly, no. we -- the permit design was simply by the engineer, you heard him spoke, mr. crestfield. as far as the design of the exterior two doors, i reached out to him. i said look, i'll meet with you. let's go through it. it's something you can help us out, give us some idea. of course we have no result on it. i still reach out to him. >> there's two things here. one is that if you have an accessible entry/exit you can't have the gate that requires the special implement. right now it has a metal gate in front of it. is -- if that is deemed an accessible entry or exit you can't have anything that requires a special implement
3:34 am
to open it. secondly, both doors, there are hardware that opens two doors. >> good to know. and we're proposing the current permits. >> your curb permit redoing the doors, but they're custom doors made to match what is existing. >> good to know. we're looking to immediately. we can find something like this we'd like to implement it. >> by the way, what is the -- when they talk about appellants talk about mismatch and you've indicated one door leaf is bigger, how much bigger is it than the other one? >> four inches.
3:35 am
>> thank you. anything further? >> i just heard from a building inspector that recommended the [inaudible] whefrz i state that here that means there's no notice of violation, there's nothing in the complaint tracking system so it could be a correction notice which doesn't show up in the dbi system. that would be in the building inspector system. if that i have had inspections out there, there's a possibility that an inspector had asked him to do something with this and this is where this got triggered from. they didn't state that on their permit. normally smtsdz on the permit you'll say to comply with building inspector's correction notice.
3:36 am
they didn't say that. it's not in the brief. i just sat down and the architect corrected me. i apologize, but there wouldn't have been anything in the records to show that here tonight. i need to go back and see where that came from because that building inspector may not have realized all the issues that existed prior to this building via the nsr. i certainly do pautz because i was at the board of appeals on 731 and at 731 commercial a lot and i know we need to get this right and commissioner function, on the doors, they're probably is a way to do that with the two openers and the doors, but a lot of times we make the 5 foot open a 3 foot with the leaf. if it's preservation i want's preservation. there's always a balance there. >> it's easier to buy a stock
3:37 am
2 foot door and 3 foot door. >> with this preservation i'm not sure -- this isn't a 2 foot and 3 foot. these would have to be custom made. . i belief they are. >> yeah, they are. >> isn't there a threshold too before you have to upgrade the facility to full ada? >> yes, there is. they may have had a hardship in those doors. there's nothing in the brief to say they were made to do that. . they can do it voluntarily, which is fine, but if the building inspect thor has made a call and i don't know about it and i'm up here speaking about it on behalf of that department we may need time to speak about it because there are a lot of permits they're trying to close out from three, four years ago and that's what the architect is telling me here. you may want to have them
3:38 am
speak to that but there's nothing that i know about officially apart from what i'm being told from an architect. >> well, we made the changes previously in terms of of getting rid of the dropped ceiling because of the impact it had on the exterior. >> i know. this was a time consuming issue but i thought we got it so we don't want to make any wrong moves and i don't think either side want to do that. i don't. >> if you didn't have to do this do you want to do it? >> if we don't have to do it, we won't do it. >> okay. >> then we need to have a little more time.
3:39 am
>> do you have something to add to what i just talked about. >> come forward. please wait until the commissioner returns until you start speaking. >> i don't have the the
3:40 am
documents here, but what i found is they were working on a permit from 2010 and on those permit drawings, the is engineer had shown making a bathroom accessible and a path of travel that turned out to have a 21 inch height difference which he hadn't realized. so when the field inspector saw that that was there that was not an accessible path of travel to the accessible bathroom from the other space he said oh, you need to have the entrance of 735 but accessible and that 's when i got brought in to solve that problem. that was a correction notice, not a notice of violation on the field inspector that triggered this.
3:41 am
>> in looking at the previous drawings you're saying? a: right. there's something that didn't work the way the previous design had been designed in terms of accessibility and there wasn't space to deal with that internally. it had room for a lift, there wasn't room for a ramp. >> but the adjustment then to the differential height, what does that have to do with the front door? >> coming in a different way. >> right, right. that was my understanding. >> so the other space has access to bathroom in the base m. they have an accessible path of travel to the toilet room in the new space than wasn't accessible. >> yeah, but that path of travel goes outside. >> well, no, i'm saying is the 731 path of travel to a
3:42 am
toilet room is in the 731 entrance into an accessible elevator to an accessible bathroom so to get there you have to have that coming from the street so they're considered separate classroom areas with separate access from the street. >> thank you. i'm not sure we need to give you more time then, mr. duffy, unless you feel that there's something that could be done with respect to the front door. >> well, [inaudible] he's the district building inspector, he's pretty knowledgeable on the ada codes, but if something is wrong -- it's easy to draw something on the plans and when you get there it's wrong so we have to then
3:43 am
address that and usually if he needed a revision permit or another permit, but i don't know that without speaking to him and it's up to the board what you want to do with this permit but if we triggered the accessibility at the front door then that has created the appeal. i don't think the appellant is worried about the inside stair but certainly the access to the front is the issue so i don't -- if you want to give me more time to go back to dbi and continue it and see where this triggered. i don't mind going down there with the inspector and figuring it out where he was coming from. i think we could give that a chance. >> i think it's reasonable. >> thank you. >> i would move to continue this. how much time do you need mr.
3:44 am
duffy? >> i could get it done before the next hearing, january 14. >> is that okay with the permit holder and appellant? >> hold on. can i change that? the inspector's going to ireland for christmas. >> we're talking about january 14. >> i know, he's going for a long time. >> okay. he needs to be there. yeah, 21st. let's give it a little bit more time. he'll be back by then. >> and the continuance is to allow for dbi inspection. >> to verify what requirement they have made upon the facility.
3:45 am
>> how we ended up with the removal of the threshold that goes into that store front prior to any permitting process. >> let's deal with one thing at a time. >> commissioner fung, would you like a briefing or just an update. >> i think just an update. the motion is to move to january 21, 2015 to conduct a site visit to verify what ada requirements dbi imposed on the permit holder. >> on the motion to continue to january 21st, 2015, president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> itch. >> commissioner wilson. >> i. >> the vote is four, zero. this is continued to january
3:46 am
21, 015. >> our last item, appeal number [inaudible] department of building inspection. property's at 41 lake street protesting the petition to remove existing foundation at west property line and construct new compliant foundation, new anchor bolts at new foundation and wall above. >> we need to hang on one minute. >> sorry. we'll wait until our room clears, the commissioner returns and we'll begin with the appellant.
3:47 am
>> i think i can move this along about keeping the eye on the ball and getting this building fixed. the issues on both sides of the board.
3:48 am
there's a foundation problem on the west side of the building caused by the neighborhood. the current set of drawings are addressing that. problem with the current permit though is when this building was condoed, the lot that the building sits on, the land lot goes away and the building department creates air right lots. the current building was filed on the secondary right lot so we're asking the board to up hold the permit but grant a special condition permit for the other unit such that the foundation work is correctly done the way the building wants when you do condos you have to have a permit for both units when you're doing work on common area so we're asking the board to up hold the permit for the exact same
3:49 am
work. the other issue is my client's concern with the foundation on the opposite side when they built this garage, and i don't know if this will help, but they lowered the grade so that the bottom of the footing is at the top of the slab which means on the east side of this building there is no footing so the building department is working with us to basically get up and say what they need to say, that they should fix the other side of the foundation while you're fixing the west side so mr. cox, the engineer, show him the revised drawing which we're asking the board to grant a special conditions permit to do the foundation work on the other side at the same time m. . it's similar to a car with
3:50 am
four flat tires. you can't put a car with two flat tires on an the freeway and expect it to drive. i believe both sides are okay with this concept. this is the fix on the other side [inaudible] the idea is to grout underneath the footing and put a curb underneath it and a concept is acceptable to everybody. i any we're done if you want to -- >> expect that the footing on the east side has not been developed by building department. >> they were out there today. >> maybe we should hear from mr. duffy. p
3:51 am
>> you're right, they haven't been out there to look at it, but that's why we want to get a concept. >> just to address your comment, was that a engineer just to review the plans? yeah, that would have to happen. it's [inaudible] on the main permit it's a brick foundation, they need to fix it and so they've come up with some solution that the permit owner appeal is for one side. they came up with one solution to deal with fixing it on both sides. they've come up with a solution to come up with a detail and put, like, [inaudible] existing foundation and grout underneath it and add a front on to it. i've seen this before so i'm sure dbi will approve it. i've seen this type of thing
3:52 am
before so it's always good whoen you see a brick foundation, it's good to do something to it and whether it's replace it or repair it it's better. i was out there today, the brick on the east side is only on grade. the brick foundation does not go below grade. it's an old style. it's been there for a long time but sitting on grade. >> just to confirm both owners are here? >> yes. >> we should hear from mr. patterson. >> yeah. >> anyways, i'm sure dbi will be able to az prove the dto. if there's any structurally wrong with it they'd have to speak to the engineer, which you may want to get on the language. frments >> you want us to condition
3:53 am
this if we go ahead with this? >> yes, i think so. >> i think we should have the permit holder for the record say if you a dpree with the proposal or not. >> yes, i agree with this. this is something that's been discussed before and kyle patterson, owner of 41 lake street and permit holder. and yes, i agree with it. >> and you're an agent for the other owner? do you want to say anything? >> i've spoken with my wife. my wife's name is tina ybarra, she's working tonight, but i spoke to her and we agree. >> is there any public comment? so commissioners, i believe the request would be to grant the appeal and up hold the permit on the condition that
3:54 am
the revised plans be adopted and also that unit -- the address for 39 lake be added to the permit so both 39 and 41 be on the permit. that constitutes an entire address for that property. >> they asked for something a lit l bit different. they asked to up hold the permit if there is a special condition. >> when well revise a permit they creates a special condition. it'll go through the plan check process and then the dbi will issue a board of appeals special conditions permit that's a revisions permit that's not appealable. >> and then we would condition the other side also upon the dbi plan check review.
3:55 am
>> that review would take place as part of the revision process. >> will you say this motion for me? >> yeah. >> we may get some language for code compliance for 44th avenue maybe if that would satisfy you. >> okay. >> can i just -- i know -- i know there was a lot of time and effort in here to get this. . i want to appreciate it. sometimes i'm criticizing them, but i wanted to state that. >> in a holiday spirit. >> in a holiday spirit, absolutely. >> are these the plans that you would have the permit revised based on these plans. >> they were prepared by mr. patterson's engineer, we're okay with them. a couple tweaks that will get
3:56 am
done at plan check so we're okay. and the nuance on the current permit is the waz the building permit requires permits done on condos they want two separate permits for each address so the current permit needs a special condition permit to fix the address issue or a sec permit to do the foundation permit. welcome to my worl but this is it so you'll have to have two permits for the west side and two permits for the east side for the identical work. >> this board can't issue those other permits. >> i'm just asking -- >> with condition upon the issuance. >> i think i'm going to come back to you and have you craft this motion. >> joe, you want to make this motion? >> this is ten minutes.
3:57 am
>> i'll take a stab. the motion would be to grant the appeal and to condition the existing permit on adding a second address and its corresponding special conditions permit. that doesn't work? >> i don't think that works because the only thing -- a special conditions permit is really only reflective of the work that the proposes on a permit before it so if there's a new permit that needs to be obtained you can say you're conditioning it on them obtaining that new permit but it's not a special conditions
3:58 am
permit, just a new permit. so you're saying they need to get a new permit ksh for the two addresses -- >> either the board can add unit 31 to this permit >> we can cothat? do that? >> yes. >> and then condition this also upon the issuance of a second set of permits for the [inaudible]. sdwl okay. >> okay. so those -- >> does that work? >> and are those plans simply to reflect the east side or to amend the current permit before the board on the west side. >> you add 39 to the current permit and this would be a special condition to up hold the current permit. >> that's not answering my question. the question is is the work
3:59 am
on that drawing to amend the current scope of work on the west side of the property, not reflective on the east side of the property. >> yes. then this would be 39 and 41. this permit before the board i believe was for the work on the west side of the property. >> we understand that. we have a permit for that. this permit is only for one side. >> i think what he's saying is if you add the address you include the east side and pick up that work. >> why do we need a second permit? >> the current permit is only for unit 41 and is only for the west side. if you add the address of 39 to the west side footing you're done there. if you add this foundation work which would be on the east side and then clarify
4:00 am
the 39 and 41 -- >> we can't do that. >> we can do that. >> we can? >> yes, if that drawing is for the east side then why is there a second permit needed? it's one permit for all the work. >> go for it. >> it can be accomplished without any new permit required. i want mr. duffy to say yes. >> okay. >> i think the most important thing is that we get both numbers on the 39 and 41. that's really important. >> yeah, we've already committed to that. >> so the motion, if i may restate what i believe it should believe, would be to grant the appeal and condition the issuance on adding 39 lake street to the permit and also revising the