tv [untitled] September 5, 2012 6:30pm-7:00pm PDT
i am a frequent visitor and supporter of lafayette park. i want to express my opinion on this issue here tonight. i am a member of friends of lafayette park, i know from direct personal experience since 2008 that the french have worked tirelessly to help the rec and park department raise public awareness of the renovation and about the opportunity for public input. san francisco recreation and park department has notified park users and neighbors about the renovation of lafayette park and about the opportunity for anyone to have their say about it. recreation and park department has held numerous public meetings that were well publicized to gather public input ever since the bond was passed and the posted notices in the park and sent notices to those who live near the park. the project manager has
announced her direct phone line #at all the meetings and gatherings to maximize public opportunity to express concerns and the recreation and park commission has held hearings to get input and get public approval. there has been ample opportunity for objewered prior to the starf the renovation. the appellant referred to the sf mime troupe. their 1965 arrest on august 7, 1965 in lafayette park inspired the idea of a community gathering space as a minor design feature but it has nothing to do with this appeal. it was a product of a lengthy and transparent process that the santa fe -- san francisco recreation and park department provided. anyone who cared would have had the opportunity to know about it and make their opinions known,
ask any questions. there was ample opportunity for all that. i am in support of the renovation project and have actively participated in the planning and development of the plan. please denied the appeal so this project will move forward and the project can be renovated as quickly as possible for the benefit of the community. thank you. president hwang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i have lived for 28 years one block east of lafayette park. when i moved to the neighborhood, i had done to it -- young children and they used the playground. i have had three different dogs who use the park. i am very familiar with lafayette park and had used it virtually daily. i sit on the friends of lafayette park board as the landscape chair and work with the cleaning and greening effort
every first saturday. during this time, i have never seen shannon gallagher at the park. we could just miss each other. i am -- i care very much about my part -- park and have worked tirelessly towards this plan that has been talked about tonight. which was approved in 2008 through the bond. it is very disturbing to think that one person can file an appeal and we can get a project lead to the extent that we have. i feel very certain that if ms.
gallagher really had interests, she could have presented this before we started construction. when we in fact sat at my house for a week, night after night filling out envelopes to the owners of the people in the neighborhood, she could have received this in chicago as well as in san francisco. i feel certain you will understand how important this is to all of us. we have had tremendous relationship building from the landscape architect and many other people involved. our goal is to do the right thing, but we want our part gone in a timely manner, and we are working toward a common and are trying to address all issues before it started. please understand how important this is to all stakeholders and
do not allow the appeal to move forward. good thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good evening. compared to my other neighbors, i am a relative newcomer. i have only been in the neighborhood five years or so, and lafayette park first came to my attention -- i have seen it when there was no vacation -- notification of the plans mary and her team have for the park, and i know she listened to my concerns, and they are trying to implement something i advocate, and she listened to concerns of my neighbors, and to make it
short, i support her plans, and please let her continue her efforts. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi, my name is patricia, and i use the park at least five times a week and have for years. i would like to say i did go to some of the planning meetings and was rather surprised after hearing a number of speakers -- i guess the meeting was an hour and a half or two hours -- many of whom had a lot of issues with the park, and i presume the meetings would be presented to the commission. i was rather surprised when i saw miss thompson got up before
the commission and reported there was no community opposition, and i think this is where some of the concerns have been all along. i know i also called rec and park every time before there was a meeting and said there are no signs of the part regarding these meetings. could somebody please get a signed up -- get signs up? one person had a lot of additional access, and i say it for whatever reason we do out reach, it kept many people out. i would like to say there are a couple of issues, and i would like to see the appeal of held. one is they have connected the ada accessible route to the no.
10 bus on washington street. this is problematic. they require the side entrances be connected to public transit. it is not a wheelchair accessible on washington street. buses cannot let people off on the sidewalk. there are no sidewalk ramps. the person would have to wheel into the street to get to the entrance. we brought this up with mary, and she basically said what went on in the park was her business. what is outside in t is not. i am disabled. there is no point of having accessible teachers inside if people cannot get to the park. the no. 1 bus would have been a great alternative. it runs all the time. they have got bulldozers.
they could make it more compliant. they could have two joint together. they were told they were not to change the size, the shape, anything about these in order for it to comply with a categorical exemption. these things are being changed. the summit is being cut into and taken away, which is not reversible act, in order to put in a much larger maintenance facility, and i believe it is a violation of standards and they were mandated to follow in order to get a categorical exemption. therefore, the permits are in violation of what they were supposed to do. thank you. >> next speaker please. and why i have a few brief comments. i reviewed -- >> i have a few
brief comments. i reviewed the introductions, and what is most disturbing is there seems to be a conflict between facts. when the brief says this is a fact, and another says this is the fact that is in conflict. i am satisfied at a brief that was filed by the recreation and parks department has much more credibility than the so-called facts presented in the appellants degrees. it does not make any sense. i live across the street from the park. i am also an architect, and i am familiar with the project process of many agencies all over the bay area, and when i read things saying what they say, like the light and dark
colored tables and the bus stations, if you are familiar with the building code of san francisco, there is nothing that requires that the reaganite i think there is something about the limit and definition of the project -- and requires that. i think there is something about limit and definition and the appropriate response -- there is nothing that says you have to have light or dark colored tables, so when i read statements like that, it suggests to me the appellant does not understand or even read the building code but would rather make statements about what she believes the code should say or would like it to say. access to the site is not in the building code, so i find the appellants brief does not have any credibility, and i urge the commission to deny the appeal
and get this project built. >> you care to state your name for the record? >> my name is linus. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is jeffrey miller. i am the landscape architect the park hired to design the playground, and i would like to address the 80 a review of that facility -- the ada review of that process as well as the overall -- you are shaking your head. >> i am wondering if you are an employee of the rec and park department or an adviser. >> i was hired to design the playground by the friends of lafayette park. not park and rec, but our work
was coordinated. >> that is all i need to know. >> through that process, we went through and ada review with mr. jensen, who was very careful about looking at our plans, which is unnatural -- none natural design for the park. it is going to be an unusual redesign for the park. he was there a excited as were other folks in the presentation. it was interesting how his review brought up several things about accessibility that were incorporated in our plans that we were happy to do so. the park and recreation commission thought very highly of the overall scheme and the playground design in particular.
the design was vetted through numerous meetings that were announced in the neighborhood and held at a neighborhood facility. i think everything was done to outreach to neighbors. good from my point of view, a project of this source i have been involved in in the past, and other public parks, buena vista park, lafayette park, and other projects i have been involved with, there is always a degree of disagreement in these parks canno, and i think we areg last vestiges of disagreement with lafayette park. i would encourage you to set aside a disagreement, what the project go ahead. there has been quite a lot of process put in the park.
it is going to be a great facility, and i do not see a reason to hold it up at this point. >> next speaker. >> i live at 1900. i am not a member of friends of lafayette park, but i am a neighbor of that region. i oversee the park. i have lived there for 10 years, and i am upset. my family is upset. we are pissed that is part of what we love to visit, that we have our dogs play at, that i walked through is like this. it is not right that one person can put a stop to this. the city has done everything right. friends of lafayette park has done everything right.
i give notice. and whenever there is a cleanup, it gets sent to my apartment. i also own apartments in washington, d.c. i used to work for the federal government. i am back in the bay area. whenever there is anything happening, and notification about where my apartment is located and of reaching me, so if somebody who lives in -- ends of reaching me, so if somebody lives in chicago, i guarantee they would receive notification. if they did not receive it, that is their fault. it is not fair for the whole community to be impacted. i want my park back. i want a project to begin. every day there is one guy watering the othedirt. my heart bleeds for the city because my tax dollars are going to waste.
i do not know how much money is lost every day because nothing is being done for the park. it is an embarrassment. it is just an inert and one person that is watering it. -- it is just dirt and one person watering it. give us our park back. we do not want a pile of dirt. >> is there any more public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes of rebuttal.
>> thank you for your time. there is a lot of concern about the delay i have caused with his permit appeal, and anyone that knows and knows that it only stops work related to the permit. let's look at what was going on before the appeal. here is the daily reports from july 5, and what happened that day? two operating engineers work for 32 hours. a laborer and his friend work for a total of 16 hours. two four men work and three carpenters. our total number of employees on that day was 68, 11. another day we have one engineer who worked for eight hours, and four labor received put in an eight hour day. -- four laborers each put in an
eight hour day. what we know is that rec and park posted a sign saying there would be a closer to one of the dog areas that would remain open for two weeks while they worked on plumbing. it has been over a month. and they are not done. delays have nothing to do with this permits. this has to do with soil conditions they did not test for, and now they are dealing with them, and they have got a delay. now i have asked you to pay attention to one important piece of information. i do not happened to have a historian in my back pocket, but i did meet richards, and while standing there looking at some photos he obtained, we looked and noticed this is from the house. how important, and how required
to be preserved under federal law is this? what are we going to do when we go with bulldozers and find what you can see with your own eyes, and we did it up to put pavement down, and we cannot start the project? let's take a look of the concept and what was to happen. there was only going to be pavement here. here is what i was pointing out to you. this is actually asphalts that marks the carriage turnaround that is so historic plea important. as for concern about transportation, let me cite building code 1134 bee 2.1, whih does require the closest of transportation stop, 3 feet from the entrance to the party protected and use for access for
people who want to come to the park. i am asking for work but has not been done properly to be taken care of our youth -- by you to make sure the project continues safely in a way that you are seeing and that it is done properly in a way that will last for years to come. good >> could you please read? >> under the building codes it says when there is a structural repair or addition, the following habiliments must be made accessible. of primary entrance to the
building or exterior area that is being altered. of primary path of travel to the specific area of alterations, and now including a path to travel to the entry point at the public right of way that is closest suit transportation, a path of trouble to transportation, a designated parking, and identifying an additional sign aage. >> thank you. i just wanted a provision. perhaps i would like to take the opportunity to respond. the first being the discovery of what appears to be a remnant of the holiday house of the summit.
we were not aware that is out of sight, but that does not mean we do not care. good when archaeological resources are discovered on the site, we protected. we contact the city's archaeological on staff. we asked him to a value if the restores, identify, and give us directions -- to evaluate resources, identify, and give us directions. we are working to develop an approach to either retain it or some other measure to record it prior to demolition. we do have a protocol in place for dealing with those kinds of things.
that was the last item i wanted to address. there are two bus stops flanking the park, one on washington street and one on sacramento st.. of bus stops we connect to his is compliant with the code, and kevin jensen has signed off on it. if you are familiar with lafayette park, you know that due to topographical issues, certain locations, the southernmost block, there is 20 feet, so to make that an entrance would have extreme impact on the site. and we would have to build guardrails 300 or 400 feet in length in order to make five and accessible entrance. good -- to make it an acceptable entrance.
the bus stop itself, whether it reaches is not in our ability. and we do hope that muni makes buses success of bove -- accessible, but it does meet the code to my understanding, and i do have representative if you have a question. good thank you -- >> thank you. those are not as accessible, is that right? >> correct. certain areas are accessible, but the majority of streets do not meet uthe 5% requirement for travel. >> thank you.
mr. sanchez. >> just one point in response to the appellants. they pointed out the driveway path, and it is my understanding it is not subject to the permit before you for approval this evening, and the work within does comply to the review that was granted to it, and they may want to confirm that, but that is my understanding. >> the matter is submitted. >> mr. sanchez, i do not know which of you are going to answer this question.
can you address the concern there was serial permitting? >> i think it is death from the department of building inspection. i did check today, and there are a couple of different permits approved. there was one issue, and this one has been suspended, but it is probably better, makes more sense to may be applied under separate permits. may be planning is going to uphold because they have to go through further review, so if you want to get your project started, i see it all the time. people whose blood permits on different scopes of work. if -- people split permits on different scopes of work. i would not call four permits an unusual.
>> there is enough for the project. >> there could be three or four reasons. i would not be sure, but sometimes if you have to go through planning and they say, we are going to go through further review on that. if you have a lot of work, it is probably better to split that up. i do not think there is anything sneaky. it is probably just clever to do that. >> there was a concern raised about lack of documentation on the inspection, and you talk about adding a special inspection. i would like you to talk a little more about that. >> when the permit is issued, special inspections are supposed to be added right before the permit is issued. i think tonight someone showed
the special inspection sheet. we have informed them that is not part of the documents, but it is ok to get them out now. but it does happen occasionally. when you go to the job and you see something that requires a special inspection that is not added, get them in the system. it does happen. it is an oversight sometimes, but they are told all the time to look into this. i think we caught if. -- it. it is something that is going to be taken care of by dbi, and our inspector is probably going to be in the cite one or two times a week, and we generally deal with someone on site, and we would review