Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 29, 2012 6:00am-6:30am PDT

6:00 am
building next to us is on jones. the alleys between the two buildings. when we go to get groceries, do people have this picture in their mind? when we get to get groceries, to bring them in the front door heap, we have to park the car in an illegal the sound, and look the cursor is, take them four stairs and the lobby of the building and go to the elevator. we used to be able to pull into the back alley. it is being contested and just open the door and there is a ramp to go to the elevator. it was a lot. for a person to deal with someone who is disabled as well as all the rest of parts of our life, it is a pain.
6:01 am
if robert has trouble walking which his back has caused a lot of problems and walking is one of them, it is much better for him to go through the alley and there is -- the door that comes into the building there goes into the basement through a ramp. it is a sloping ramp. that would be the best way for him to go into the building if it -- if he comes to the point where he needs a wheelchair. we're sympathetic that there is a lot of problems. nobody is arguing about that. in the process of this, somehow, some other kid is set -- other considerations, i think we are being overlooked. either the gate should be removed or there should be access with keys to the gate and the gate should be opened.
6:02 am
>> have you requested a key? >> no. we have requested a key and said -- they said they will give us a key. if we come through their with a car -- there with a car and we have to open the gate, it is a pretty busy area. this is all in the tenderloin. >> thank you. president hwang: thank you. is there any other public comment? please step forward. >> i am the resident manager at 691 post that adjoins 642 jones. i have been -- in october i will be a manager for eight years there. my understanding is the back door of our building that goes
6:03 am
to the alley has only -- always been an emergency exit only. if anyone has requested a key for the back door, we have made copies. since the gate has been put up, there has been controversy about the gate, about the locks on the gate, and everything has been rectified for access and exit. when you are talking about is accessible for people to get out. the two larger gates are not locked. all it takes is to move a bar in the inside and the gate can open. there is no lock on those dates. there was a point where there was a lot on the gate. i have no idea why. i did not install the gate. i did not have a lot to do with the gates being installed and put up. all i can say is since the gates has been up, it has been a pleasure to not have to clean up
6:04 am
the mess that was on -- in that alley on a daily basis. you know, i think we can come to some kind of agreement where there is wheelchair accessibility and all that stuff. >> it occurred to me that you are employed -- thank you. i wanted to make sure we were appropriate. >> prior to elizabeth having the building, if i did not clean the alley, no one claimed to the alley. it was my job for almost seven years. i'm not complaining. i am just saying that it has been a major improvement and i have heard a lot of things that are not true about the gate, about it being locked on the inside. it is not locked on the inside. people can get out. people in the past have pulled
6:05 am
their car in the back, got around, open the door, rian in -- opened the door and brought their stuff in. not everyone wants to keep. there is 36 units in that building. i do not know how many are in 642 jones. people that have been requesting a key have not been denied. and that is all i have to say. thank you. president hwang: next speaker. >> i am a resident at 691 post st. building. i am here today to advocate that the applicant be denied a permit
6:06 am
for the date that was installed. there was the out most willful disregard -- but most -- utmost willing this regard. there was never permit in place when the gauge was installed. that happened -- when the gate was installed. that happened on a saturday when all the offices were closed. no actions could be taken to stop the gating. the applicants were ordered to get the appropriate permits. these instructions were ignored. in january 2012 signs were implemented for noncompliance. and on april 4, 2012, there was another hearing for the gate. the co-applicant and [inaudible]
6:07 am
or absent from that meeting. i have an exhibit that the applicant or his agents. attached prior -- or his agents attached. this is an email from the owner of that hotel. everyone is talking about the safety hazard, i know that the applicant stated in his brief that there was a lock box. i took pictures of the gate and the gate at jones. i am not seeing any kind of lock box. that is the gate, one side opened. this is the gate, other side opened. this is the front of 642 jones.
6:08 am
i am not seeing a lock box. when i went down the street, this is what i am seeing is a lock box. is that correct? this is on the 605 jones street building. i have a lot more to say about -- i would ask that the board denied the application -- deny for disregarding the city ordinances. he placed the tenants at risk for potentially creating a situation for a disabled person. president hwang: thank you. any other public comments? is there any other member of the
6:09 am
public who would like to speak? we will start with rebuttal. you have three beds. >> -- three minutes. >> thank you. i came up with a few more questions and comments. i did inform them i needed longer hours and i was denied via email. i asked for the extension. >> which hours? >> 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. i asked for the gate to be open
6:10 am
longer hours. during daylight. >> eight to seven or eight to 10? >> i hope -- asked for the gate to be open all the time. i was denied by the city. to follow up on the question about the lock box? where is that? i am not aware of that. nobody told me about it. where is the emergency push button? i do not understand that, either. the elevator at 691 post holds 10 people. >> with that enable more than one person to go in one at a time? would you able -- be able to sit in a wheelchair? >> i have not tested a
6:11 am
wheelchair. i am not in one yet. there is a lot of us you can get in the elevator. there's a lot of big furniture. it has not been a problem with so that people who have come in so far with walkers. the wide ones with the bars. i am worried about my driver is to pick me up on a consistent basis so some mornings it's great but it is not open, maybe a 40 5:00 a.m. in the morning, how can i get them to try to pull out in the alley? my friends have given up on it and still parked in the bus stop. they're tired of trying to attempt that. i hae a lot -- have a lot of drivers and a lot of help.
6:12 am
medical was approved a few -- medi-cal was approved a few weeks ago. thank you. >> do you have a rebuttal? >> i just wanted to conclude by repeating the fact that the initial intended use of the alley was never to be a loading zone or parking zone. if there are cars parked there loading and unloading, they can prevent emergency vehicles from accessing the alley which was its intended purpose. i believe that some of the tenants are perturbed about a lack of -- it is an inconvenience to not able to use the alley as a loading zone but that is not what it was intended for.
6:13 am
for us, the safety issues trumps the convenience of it being an open loading zone. we intended this gate to help the community and residents feel safer. it was included in the brief. we have many letters of support. tents were very thankful for it. >> i have a question. the intended use of a public right of way? is that described anywhere? >> that is what i am ascertaining conversation with very-various stakeholders. >> who are the stakeholders? >> dpw and adjacent property owners. >> if the public street is used for something other than what some people called the intended use, it is hard for me to
6:14 am
understand where you're getting the intended use peace. if it is documented somewhere it would be held for -- helpful for me to see it. i will ask dpw. >> a question came up about where the lock box is. >> it is on the building itself, not on the gate. next to the gate on the building. >> how is it attached? >> i am not familiar with all the logistics'. -- of the logistics. the panic button is a push bar. >> is there no panic button? you just push it open, you do not have to -- ok.
6:15 am
>> there are a lot of specific comments that i think the department would need to respond to. this is right of way. the property owners are responsible to maintain this. cleaning or damage to the road, they are responsible to maintain that. going to the various issues as it relates -- the department is not sure that there are different reasons from different stakeholders as to why this gate needs to stay or be removed. we believe we should permit based upon police recommendation and the fire department's recommendation.
6:16 am
and based upon a document provided by the applicant. having guards and steam cleaning to try to protect the location of certain documentation provided to us. they want a level of public safety in this portion of the right-of-way. from a disability access viewpoint, had this issue been brought to the department immediately after the issuance of the permit or during, the department would have taken action to remedy that situation and find a resolution to insure -- at this point we are not sure that she wants the gate open 24- 7 or removed. is it truly a disability access issue or is it something else? she stated that she has been
6:17 am
provided with rejection of their request to open the gate. this was a few days after the department took the extraordinary action -- are requiring the gate be open from 8-5. even though they depended -- the permit has been suspended. we do not believe we have the authority to further increase that requirement. i am here to answer any questions you may have. >> [inaudible] is there a corresponding building permit for the construction? >> we have received a piece of documentation because there was a complaint and a building
6:18 am
inspector that stated the permit is required and we will be discussing this to determine whether additional building permits are required. there appears to be some difference in understanding as to that requirement. >> i raised that for the following two points. one is if dbi is reviewing it and it needs to be ada accessible, it would have to be at least 3 feet wide. the second and i am not sure -- the door now is the exit for two fire escapes which then requires a calculation for occupant load that has to exit through that governs the width of the doorway.
6:19 am
i was not quite aware when i was reading a brief that two apartment houses were fairly sizable. perhaps i should ask that of the building department. >> what is the term of this permit? is it revocable at 30 days? does it go on forever? >> it is revocable at the direction of dpw. >> dpw can decide to revoke and reopen the street? >> that would be correct. >> knowing what you know now, did dpw recommend they can be opened permanently as a result of the print from 85 fax you kind of half recommended it during this time period. >> their specific issues from the applicant.
6:20 am
one is as it relates to disability access for a variety of residents at this property. the other one is again the issue related to quality of life and various issues the applicant has submitted. there seems to be -- needs to be a balance in this case. it would add additional facilities that allow easy ingress and egress to be appropriate for the gate open during daylight hours which may or may not results of the quality of life issues, that is something we can make a determination on. >> asked us -- access for emergency vehicles, is there a requirement for the lock box? >> the understanding is that this was reviewed by the fire department and police department. they have determined that this
6:21 am
facility satisfies their needs. the department would take that piece of information that we received as this is accessible to these emergency service vehicles. >> i have a couple of questions. the intended use was not for people to load and unload items and have access. someone from dpw advised intended use was for something other than that. can you speak to that? >> it deadends where exit points
6:22 am
are provided. there is no fair repair. it is not a thoroughfare as it relates to public right-of-way. it does not appear to the department that people would use this as a doorway -- their fair -- thoroughare. -- thoroughfare. that appears to be what these un [inaudible] and to provide access. >> no documentation that would limit the use of that l.a.? >> there is no limitations. >> the other thing is i would
6:23 am
like to hear from the department on the chronology of the improper construction of the gate without a permit. if it came into being in december 2010 and here we are in july 2012, i would like to know from your view what happened. >> sometime in 2010 the department received a complaint from 311 of the structure. we dispatched an inspector. the inspector identified this gate constructed across colin place and provided notice to the party owners -- property owners. remove the gate or acquire rights for the gate to remain in place. the property owner along jones street came to the department and informed -- explained the
6:24 am
situation. at that point, wanted -- one of the initial recommendations, that was one week after the notification. within 30 days of the notice. the applicant did come to us and explained the situation. on initial review. we recommended -- if you want to close it and control that portion of the public right of way, it needs to be converted to private property. that was most appropriate. they had started that process [unintelligible] -- so they could maintain their specific rights. this takes up to 18 months. we directed them to keep the
6:25 am
gate open. it seemed appropriate. several months later, received another complaint to indicate what -- it was closed and locked. we went out there and we issued a notice of violation. at that point, the notice required them to acquire appropriate complete -- and complete the process. the applicant came back to us and inquired as to other similar alleyways. there was an emergency order to temporarily gate off the right of way. they approached the department
6:26 am
and presented documentation at that point for a permit to close this alleyway. we had requested additional information from the police department and the fire department that the request would be appropriate. we did receive that notification. we continued to process the permit. in the meantime we had a director's hearing to review the notice of violation the department issued. >> in april 2012? >> that is correct. the hearing for whatever reason we cannot ascertain, the applicant did not show up to the hearing. the hearing officer to look at testimony, understood the situation as presented, made a decision of upholding the notice of violation with the caveat that if the permit is approved,
6:27 am
a notice of violation would be reduced slightly. they did issue -- they did construct without permit. they did acquire a permit and paid the financial penalties associated with the violation and the department issued the permit. >> that was the penalty of $7,000. reduced to 2000. what about the time when that department was aware that they had done nothing between the first complete and second complaint? was that just waved? -what happens is they did apply
6:28 am
but it was taking so long that they kept waiting longer. >> one last question. if the alleyway is not vacated, it is still a public way. what about the curb spaces? is that in not legal parking space? >> -- a not legal parking space? >> they department did make certain improvements. instead of a curb return, [unintelligible] those were installed to identify the trouble way and a driveway, was installed to allow vehicle
6:29 am
access. >> that is not a parking space. >> correct. >> that is at the intersection of jones and colon. >> thank you. >> i would like to ask the building department a couple of questions. >> i knew i stayed for reason. >> if this gates and its [unintelligible] is a fire exit