Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 13, 2015 7:30pm-8:01pm PST

7:30 pm
deeply drilled reinforced concrete piers included map slab foundations and retaining walls drainage excavation, backfill and slabs to produce building pads and outdoor usable space. those totaled approximately 465 thousand dollars based on dbi's estimates. >> and the other question i have would be -- and what is the total cost stated for the permits for the subject property's destruction? >> i believe a copy of the permit form -- well, what we need to do is go to dbi's full report which i don't have with me. >> that's fine, i can ask the department. thank you: you're welcome. .sing thank you, mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, scott sanchez, planning department, so first i have a few point ins the beginning,
7:31 pm
questions in regards to the form type, the application form type, that's a determination made by the department of building inspection, whether it's an alteration or a demolition, there's different color form, different number forms that's a determination made by dbi, that's a provision in the building code, that's something that is in the discretion of the department of building inspection to apply, what we work with in the city are several definitions for demolition, so the department of building inspection that hair own definition, in the planning code we have one under 317 which has a couples of calculating it, you trigger 317 if you require a demolition permit pursuant to dbi requirements and this's also two other calculations based upon the air y of the building and the amount of walls that are remaining, further, we have
7:32 pm
additional definition that we use for demolition and *f and applying ceqa, so in terms of thresholds for various levels of environmental review and that's an even more strict requirement. in reviewing this application, even though it is an alteration permit that has been submitted here, we did review it and find that there's a demolition per section 317, section 317 as you can imagine does not contemplate a scenario quite like this, you have a building under construction because what appears to be user error there was an argument made that this was a calamity we did not find this to be a calamity which would allow certain revisions in the planning code to allow certain construction, whether it was an act of god or enemy of the state we did not find that to be the case based upon dment of building inspection report about the collapse itself. it was clear that the
7:33 pm
requirements had not been met for shoring and that led to the disaster here, so with reviewing the application we -- they gave us plans we determined that 317 was triggered, that would be a mandatory discretionary review hearing at the planning commission. they argued that they were not affordable, within section 317, and that favors 1.56 million, the report that is were first given to us the appraisals contemplated the finished construction cost, i didn't think that was equitable to apply here. what did seem fair to me would be to apply what the value of the property would be at the time of the failure of the building and the cost of the building. that was given temple materials that were submitted by the project sponsor, at that time
7:34 pm
based upon the assessed land cost to have property and the cost of construction that had been completes at that time, that would be more than 1.560 million, that would be something that would not be subject to a mandatory dr hear k, we did still a section 311 neighborhood notification, people within 300 feet of the property people to file a discretionary review, there was no sdetion nair review filed at that time, now it's on appeal to you. na's all i have to say on the matter, i'm available for many questions and i feel the code does not fairly cover this, this is a way that i felt would be fair not only to this project but to -- hopefully it doesn't happen again, but should this happen again in the future, this is a fair interpretation to apply. .sing you would not make any change tos the current interpretation now considering this particular case that's before us? >> no i mean, i think that
7:35 pm
it's something -- i think that it's a fair interpretation, all said to be clear too, there's am lick lt for the bypass from the hearing, it's only available for financially unaccessible housing in rh1 district if this happened in rh2 district there's no provision for a bypass from the hearing fm >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy dbi again the building permit under appeal is a permit for a revision to permit application 20111063 to document change to procedure and scope of construction due to damage to existing structure. that permit followed the incident that you heard about
7:36 pm
on december 2013 i believe it was december 18, the department issued a notice of violation, the shoring supporting the existing structure has failed causing downhill displacement of the existing building it is detached from the shoring, a substantial hazard exists, necessarily mitigation work is understood way. there was a permit issued for emergency stabilization of the structure, when mitigation work approved under the permit is complete under the direction of engineer of record, stop any work as far as demolition and preserve all elements of the structure and shoring on-site, so as you know, the permits issued to comply with the failure on the shoring, the department was involved in this, we got called out and we were out there a lot obviously and involved with the engineer of record. our engineering team and the city were involved in it as well. there's several reports that were generated for this.
7:37 pm
the -- i do have a statement from deputy director don larry on the question about the demolition and i'll read that out to you today. it's re125 crown terrace, the building department determined that because this building collapsed, as a result of the construction site accident there was no intentional demolition, building code section 103a .3.104 is not applicable in this case, the scope of demolition was approver and permit application 2014050553481 to document the xhaing of procedure and scope of construction due to damage to the existing structure at 125 crown terrace, the permit documented the loss of additional building elements and the permit was reviewed and approved by the zoning administrator scott sanchez given that the permit is being appealed and will be heard on
7:38 pm
june 11, 2015, the board of appeals has jurisdiction under this matter and has any form of about the scope of demolition. i wanted to read out that statement, that's from deputy director john larry of inspection services. and your question about the cost of the permits, commissioner? >> correct. >> is that for the original the permits that were to do the work originally? >> so, normally when you're doing construction, you're going to put the amount of what the cost of the construction will cost you. >> okay. >> so at this point so they're estimating that 465 thousand already have been used already for the shoring that was done prior so what i'm trying to get at, whatever they say they're building it atfinger it's less than 465?
7:39 pm
>> there was 300 thousand dollars in the 2011 permit and then there was the correct cost of work that was previously associated permit which was the previously 2011 permit, there was an additional 310 thousand 500, so that's 610 thousand 500 for the value of the work, so i think what you're saying is there's already -- >> 465 -- >> yeah, so there is a process with dbi with a correction notice to pay applicable fees on a project if you increase the value. .sing can you walk me through the process. .sing we can increase the valuation or put applicable fees, that's during the project before final inspection, it would be increased valuation of fees due to additional work and that's pretty typical for anybody doing any type of work, we go out, it's undervalued swre the right as inspectors to did that and it create it is
7:40 pm
other permit that i talked about, if that was the case, we would need another permit to again correct the cost of work on previously approved permits. >> do you see where i'm coming from? >> yes. >> the difference is 155 thousand dollars and we just have shoring on the floor. >> yeah, we would need to look at that, that's something we can look at absolutely. >> you need to come forward if you're going to address me. >> senior inspector koran has been out on the site several times there are other shoring permits in place and i'm let inspector koran speak about that. >> and i think it's not just the shoring, they have got the foundation is in because that was part of the hillside stabilization, so in order to assure that all those components work together, they needed to complete the foundation, so the whole
7:41 pm
foundation is done element. .ing that's part of the 645 thousand. >> yes. >> if you left the 610 dollars for the cost of the whole build you're left with 155 thousand dollars to construct the property? >> yeah, i didn't want you to get the impression that was just for shoring, it's for the whole thing. >> i understand, yeah. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner fung i know there are a couple of other permits there that were taken out over the course since the incident happened up to recently. there's one there to comply with a notice of violation, administrative permit, the document permit of nine times penalty performed without a permit, the value of that, i believe there's another shoring permit that i have details on, i just don't have my hands up there now, but in answer to your question, the fees could be reviewed to get the proper valuation. i don't think that's a problem for us to do that. >> thank you, inspector.
7:42 pm
>> sure. >> okay, we can take public comment now. is there anyone here would would like to speak please step forward. >> good evening, madam president and members of the board my name is annie rosen bloom there's a lot of confusion going on with this project and i'm trying to understand what was going on with these permits, it was said this was an alteration even though the whole house fell down the hill and was destroyed. i went to the city planning site and it still had old information describing the project before the house fell but it did say discretionary review mandatory so i wasn't too concerned knowing there would be a public hearing
7:43 pm
coming, i went to the building department site and found the permit which said to document change to procedure of construction due to damage of existing structure damage to be repaired and restored to original condition, no change to approved plans. i found this odd since there is no existing structure anymore to repair or restore. i want to show the overhead if i'm understanding this correctly, they're saying they're still going to remodel these reminance into a four storey house and i don't see how that can be done. i'm confused as i'm sure many of the others in the neighborhood are how they can be calling this an al ration permit with the original house gone, the 311 notice in city websites looks like the project has not changed at all, i think that's where a lot of the confusion comes from, mr. murphy says the neighborhood has ceased its objections and
7:44 pm
that is not true. after six or more year, neighbors are disappointed, tired of being ignored, it is disheartening to see the code misinterpreted and abaouszed in this way. mr. murphy as former president of the dbi and former president of the mayor has influence that cannot be overcome and this project is a done deal. everybodybacker everyone is suspicious about this house falling down the hill, there had been no problems is very lucky that no one was injured or possibly killed, nobody's trying to delay mr. murphy's project, he is someone hot to keep your eye on if he wants this project done by the book and without special treatment with the sponsor, the last time i was here in 2012, i was oppose today the alteration permit because this property was protected from affordable housing and my fear was that he
7:45 pm
would remove more of the struck hawker than he -- structure than they was. . ing the board granted the al ration permit and almost six months later the entire house fell down and any obstacles mr. murphy had of a remillion dollars dole of an 854 square foot code, the code should be enforced for everyone especially mr. murphy. thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> i'm speaking on behalf of brenda yost at 115 grand terrace which is the immediate house right next door, commissioners to have board, i understand you are hearing about 125 crown terrace on wednesday, i have a work commitment and cannot attend the hearing, i just saw zone
7:46 pm
consultant's response on behalf of mr. murphy and wanted to make clear my position on the property. on page 9, it states the former requesters of the discretionary review has ceased their objections, i'm sure that refers to me and i still object the project. i did not appeal the most recent 311 because i have learned there through this long process, the city allows mr. murphy to bend anything he wants with his political connections, i realize there is little chance, i applaud ms. wood for mr. murphy to follow the rules. thank you for allowing me to clarify my o position. >> what's your name ?frjts -- would you prefer to state your name? >> sam woods.
7:47 pm
>> do you mind waiting just a moment for commissioner to return? thank you.
7:48 pm
>> madam president, while we're waiting, could i ask that the one document i submitted 11 copies be handed to you now? >> what is it? >> it's just a single document. >> i'm asking what the nature to have document is. >> the nature of the document is kind of a record of the ways in which i've been involved in the community for these many years. >> i think we'll just let you go ahead and testify. >> even though it was submitted at -- before it was submitted to you the last time you considered this issue.
7:49 pm
>> okay. >> that's why i'm submitting it again. >> then we've seen it. proceed, please. >> okay. >> i'm going to go ahead, okay, i'm ramona all bright, a registered nurse concerned with public safety and representing my community regarding land use for 40 plus years. [inaudible] the community in which 125 crown terrace is situated. the documents just addbacker submitted to all of you are copies of one submitted bh you last discussed this issue, the community then was protesting the issuance of the building permit. ironically, today we beg you to indeed issue the permit, we feel so strongly we would like
7:50 pm
to invoke the plea used by supervisor quentin cop to jim lazarus [inaudible] our reasons are two-fold since the accidental collapse of most of the old building at 125 crown terrace, the city has allowed and they demanded work be done which has created terrible visual blight. that's the concrete has been poured and walls of the portions and the walls of the portion of the 60 year-old building which did accidentally collapse are stacked at the site. second the portion of the building which did not accidentally collapse has been
7:51 pm
moved to a steep portion of the lot, put up on blocks and held only with a thin cable in a severe earthquake, it will fall into great stone below and crash into the homes on the other side of gray stone. the city has imposed these conditions on us for 14 months. certain of our residents are considering suing the city for relief in the form of demanding the issuance of the building permit which both the planning commission at a dr hearing and you of the board of appeals approved unanimously. noteworthy is the fact that steve williams the lawyer previously representing the community to deny the permit refused to represent the appellant terry woods today knowing, believing the present
7:52 pm
community consensus is to issue the building permit because of the visual blight and damage which the city has forced the project sponsor to create. that's the end of my time, right? >> thank you. yes. >> okay, next speaker. >> president, commissioners, i'm john kill gam and i'm here to ask you to deny the appeal, i'm going to be very short what i wanted to say has been already referred to so i will be very brief in my remarks. this project has been through the ringer over several years and even tonight i'm hearing matters of exaggeration
7:53 pm
innuendo and personal attacks on mr. murphy. let me say just two things, the appellant has often referred to the [inaudible] of crown terrace road and it's ironic, her building encroaches on to the road, and for your reference, i have some photos of that. there's also the matter which has been referred too often and it was further referred to in other cases here today the matter of views, and this is a code compliant project, and views are not protected. so commissioners, i would ask you to deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? okay, seeing none, then we will take rebuttal, ms. woods you have three minutes.
7:54 pm
>> okay, we've contended from the start this was a de facto demolition, mr. murphy could not retain the walls he was claiming on his project which this started. the whole house came down thanks to his construction company and he's still insisting he's going to retain walls that are not restrainable. this is his own plan, this is the section that he's claiming he salvaged. it either can be used for it in his own plans, these red lines are what we can reuse he can't
7:55 pm
reuse the floor there is no floor he's raising the ceiling, everything is new, the only thing is going to be these two walls so that is bologna, her's appraisals under 317, only applications to demolish sing m family residential buildings that are not affordable or financially accessible are exempt from discretionary reviews, he is not applying to demolish his new house. i don't care if his new house costs 8 million dollars, he can't appraise that to be exempt from section 317. it says clearly it's for housing applying to be demolished so he's appraising the wrong thing. i'm not saying his appraisal price is wrong i don't care,
7:56 pm
it's appraising the wrong thing it should be appraising the same thing as it was before it fell and before construction was made because that's what required a mandatory discretionary review and it really is one of the big contentions here. they should have had a discretionary review, not an internal review, he's not exempt from 317. he says he's putting back this portion which he's really not, he's putting back two walls. it's already been conceded at city planning that this is a demolition, so we're only talking about now the building department. their definition is the shape and size of the building envelope if that's demolished, iet's demolition and you can see, here is this, this is the envelope how is he going to build this into a four storey
7:57 pm
building and this is the envelope that's been destroyed and more than two-thirds of this building, that's also a demolition definition, a dbi, he's destroyed more than two thirds of the original building, this is what we're looking at this is what he's remodeling, where is anything to remodel, there's nothing there, this is a demolition and -- >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> and a new permit for a new house it's an all new house that needs a new permit, he needs two permit, i'm asking you to repeal this permit. >> ms. woods, i have a question for you. and you don't have to answer this but i'm curious, the notice went out on the 317 but you didn't file for dr. >> because i didn't have all this information then, i was calling all the time and talking to the zoning administrator about this and
7:58 pm
they kept telling me well, yes, it could be a demolition. i really didn't understand that there was appraisals, no one told me about the appraisals and no one was telling me he was claiming exemption and all the permits and all the websites said everything's the same, he says he was taking an internal -- he said i can legally take an internal review and that's what i'm doing i didn't realize i could take a -- make a discretionary review request, he kept burning me you can always appeal this, that's what i was told and i did not have this information. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, thanks. >> mr. nakita? >> hello, commissioners, i wanted in reference to the earlier question about fees paid to the city to let the commission know that a project sponsor has paid approximately
7:59 pm
1.6 million dollars in plan check fees and other penalty fees and fines. commissioners, please do not allow this appeal to undo the previous decisions of the planning commission and this board. it's vital to recall that the the project under consideration here in its massing and form and impacts and architectural character when completed will be indistinguishable from the pojt approved under the suspended alteration permit. that project was reviewed by planners the zoning administrator, historic preservation staff and heard it approved by the planning commission and this board. the only difference between the two project iss the technical ratio of existing building fabric to remain compared to existing building fabric removed. there's no procedural reason to and no public benefit to be derived from disapproving the
8:00 pm
permit now under appeal and sending this half built project back to the very beginning of the review process when it has already been adjudicated in every possible venue. please allow this nine year june toe to proceed to completion and allow to uphold the permit. thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> good evening, scott sanchez, planning department, just to respond to a couple of points, first in regards to the concerns about blight, after the collapse of the building, i did meet with the department of building inspection, they had in there -- and inspector duf if can get the terms right there's the engineer of the project sponsor, there was also the enbacker engineer for the adjacent project, there were meetings to discuss this, it was d


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on