Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 14, 2015 8:00pm-8:31pm PST

8:00 pm
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 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
8:01 pm
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 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
8:02 pm
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 determined that the retaining walls, the foundation work needed to be done in order to stabilize the hillside so that was authorized by the department of building inspection, i concurred with that. it was necessary for safety of the community, that was allowed to continue, but no work beyond what was necessary to stabilize the site was allowed so after the stabilization was completed, they submitted the building permit application which is now on appeal before you today my understanding they've largely been stopped for some number of months and maybe the sponsor can address that as well. we agree this is a demolition per the requirements of section
8:03 pm
code 317, we do not make determination of the appropriate permit type, if the board after appeal thinks this was inappropriately issued as an al ration and should be a demolition, that's the determination the board can make, but that is again a decision regarding the department of building inspections determination on the permit. in termser of the notification and communication with the neighbors, ms. woods was interested in this, did follow this along i have several e-mails where i described the process of 317 which allows administrative review if it's not affordable and exceeding the value of 1.506 before, before the notification went out, i informed them that this would be eligible for administrative review, but despite that, we would be doing a neighborhood notification, so i feel that there has been
8:04 pm
communication. i did not send ms. woods the decision that we have which is not appealable separately, it's just documenting our sdrition that is an administrative review, i apologize, i hasn't heard anything from her after sending statement saying it's eligible for administrative review, i think all the materials have been provided. certainly the case materials, these were submitted months ago, it was submitted back in may and anyone can come in at any time and request to review these dockets, i was identifying her we were reviewing the applications, we did the best to apply the law. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, i need your help on this. i'm not sure what this is all hinging on. >> i think the main issue seems
8:05 pm
to be that the concern that the department of building inspection may have e r-r ed in allowing this as an al ration permit rather than a demolition and construction permit, that's a question for dbi to answer. there are also questions raised about this being a lawful demolition or not, it's something that is ultimately at the discretion of the department of building inspection about whether that is a project that is subject to that requirement and in regards to the planning code requirements which i can speak to i think the concerns stem largely from -- i believe that this is affordable housing and should not have been allowed the administrative exemption you know, i just believe that given the cost of the land and the cost of the work that was done, this is not affordable housing, i mean, i think it's arguable that this ever really
8:06 pm
could be considered affordable housing. it doesn't meet any planning code of affordable housing, it's not restrigted in any way of people of a median range it's market rate housing, the building that is built will be the same one that was approved by this board a couple of years ago, the end result is the same, the change is how much material remains in the building. from our purpose, the planning department, it doesn't matter at this point because we reviewed this as a demolition, so if it's one wall or no wall, it's really irrelevant. we processed this as a demolition and again at the end of the day, it's the same building the same envelope as what was approved already. >> and the proper 311 notification was sent out and *efrp's aware of it. the other question i have, mr. sanchez, is you know, how much resources were used in regard
8:07 pm
to your department alone? >> but i can't speak to ours, but i think most of the burden fell on department of building inspection who was out there right after it happened and there's been a significant amount of time, i wouldn't say it's exceptional the amount of staff time involved in this, but it's reviewing the same project again. >> okay, thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi again i don't have too much to add, i probably apologize for not having a more detailed cost of fee, i didn't think the fees were going to come into this tonight. i know there were fees paid for staff time and there was a correction notice issued at the time, i don't have the amount of that.
8:08 pm
i heard that 1.6 million dollar -- i'm not sure if that's the permit valuation fees on permit valuation or 1.6 million dollars in fees, i just simply don't have that information with me. i do have the valuation that was on issued permits which i typically bring with me to the hear ltion i don't usually take the fees for every single permit, that's something i don't have with me and i'm not sure how important that is, i wanted to state that and just in some of the comments i mean, everyone at dbi took this seriously we don't have this happen. this type of thing does not happen and we don't want it to happen again and for -- i know people are saying there's this going on and that going on i was there at the time and dbi and i saw the concern and the work that went into going out there sending engineers out, sending inspectors out, there was ocea were involved in it as well, there were other
8:09 pm
investigations going on maybe still going on i know no one at dbi took this lightly, we don't want buildings coming down off hills and i don't think any of us want to think that's something we're brushing under the carpet, there was a -- it's the same as probably any notice of violation, an incident a notice of violation, this is a permit to correct that and as i said, i'm available for any questions on this permit. the terminology for the demolition, i read out the statement from deputy director larry and that's the department's decision. they do have the right to make that decision we have the right to make that decision and i know that there's the difference in the planning code definition and building code, we always talk about trying to get that better and we dealt
8:10 pm
with it at the board of appeals before, tla's all i have to say, i'm available for any questions from any commissioners. >> i'm still wrestling with the practical implications of this, so if it has been determined the demolition permit was needed -- >> yes, by dbi? >> by dbi, can you take me from there. >> of course, that would be an unlawful determination, if the unlawful demolition would have been determined by dbi, a hearing would have been held, and the result of that hearing if it was an unlawful demolition, there is no building allowed at that site for five years unless you want to put back exactly the same square footage that existed prior to the permit being issued for the work, so basically it's quite a severe penalty. >> maybe that's not the
8:11 pm
question i meant to ask. the permit here is an alteration permit. >> correct. >> sxit's necessitated by the fact that this effort collapsed? >> yes. >> but the contention is that what should be sought is a demolition permit. >> that's what the appellant is saying. >> so that's where i am if somebody determined that that needed to be sought also, not that it's unlawful demolition but that again based on what happened there needed to be a demolition permit, where does that take you? >> that wasn't determined by dbi to be the case, it was not an unlawful demolition, it was not considered a full demolition, it would fall under an alteration permit which in fact this is an alteration permit. because we didn't determine it a full demolition, it doesn't require a form 3 demolition permit which you would see if you would tear down an old
8:12 pm
building rtion we're still considering this an alteration and this was a determination made by dbi and that defers from the planning code where they have their section 317 so you have the differences in both codes and this is where you end up, so it is an alteration permit based on dbi interpretation of the incident or what's left of the building. >> but there's nothing going on that would allow any change to the original plans right? i mean, this is to build what was approved through all the iterations? >> and i would agree yes, it's dpoing to be the same project, foundation wise, it's going to be a lot more, there's an awful lot of concrete in there now. >> but to the neighbor's eyes. >> the project is still the same, bulk height, mr. sanchez can speak more about that, it
8:13 pm
didn't change the project or the size of the project. >> okay, thank you. >> same question that i asked mr. sanchez, how many hours do you think the city resources have been used on this particular project? >> i don't have a number but it was a lot of hours yes, and we did bill for hours, we had a correction notice that billed by the hour, our rate, i think it's about $170 an hour, a senior inspector has a comment. >> i issued a correction notice to mr. murphy for ?r in the area of 8 to 10 thousand dollars for work that we put in directly as a result of that collapse. >> okay. >> thank you. >> and any other questions still remains at this point is regarding the estimated cost of construction for the project. i pretty much assume that's going to change at this point?
8:14 pm
>> i would imagine so, yes, and that's typical for projects notd in this case extra for the foundation, if the board directs us to do so and i think you are and obviously it's been made aware to me tonight and i can bring that back to the department to review the valuation of all work including the work that needed to be done to remedy this incident that happened so that would be something we could do. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, the -- i think it's time to put this one to bed.
8:15 pm
the question of whether it should have had a specific type of a permit and the technicality of what was perhaps kind of a misnomer in the way they filled out the permit that there was no demolition is -- to me doesn't rise to the level that we want to have more process. i believe that the appellants have had their day in court, due process has been provided to them and i think it's time to put this one to bed. the issue from a non-technical, from a non-procedural and a non-legal basis is what happens if the demolition permit is
8:16 pm
overturned? the building is gone already. there's nothing left, you know. i'm sorry but there's nothing that would be served by going through more process here. >> [inaudible] wishes to address the board much. thank you, commissioners, scott sanchez, i have information in materials of the permit cost to this, it's under the building and inspection report if i can have the overhead and this was submitted in the appellant's brief. so, the initial construction estimate of october 11 was 60 thousand dollars for the work, it was subsequently revised by dbi to 300 thousand as part of the permit review process, it was again revised to 610 thousand dollars in 2013, this is prior to the collapse and
8:17 pm
then after the collapse and review by dbi, principle engineer the construction cost was up to 1.57 million. >> does that imply in which the base the fees would be -- >> yes, the fees would be based on that revised construction cost. >> thank you for that clarification. >> so where was i? >> so rudely interrupted by the zoning administrator. >> i think that's it for me. i'm prepared to move forward from this point. >> i come to the same ending, but i have some issues with the process here. i don't mrao*ef the neighbors deserve to have anymore process as my fellow commissioner has stated, i mean, what's the use if we establish this as a demo? do i believe there's been some
8:18 pm
benefit from the so-called calamity? i do. would i expect more from someone would was a president of a dbi commission as well as a current commissioner in the city? i also do. unfortunately, our system is not set up for this type of situation and i believe that it is in the benefit of the neighbors as well as the city to move forward with this. >> do you want any comments? i'm going to move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. >> on the basis? >> let me restate -- let my think about this for a second.
8:19 pm
on the basis that the dbi's determination is sound and not in error. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to uphold this permit on the basis that the department of building inspections determination is sound and not in error. on that motion president lazarus? >> aye. >> vice-president honda? >> aye. >> and commissioner wilson is absent. thank you, the vote is 3-0, this permit is upheld on that basis. >> president lazarus, there's no further business before the board. >> we are adjourned. (meeting is adjourned). 3, 2, 1
8:20 pm
(clapping). >> (clapping) good afternoon, everybody let's rise let's have a revolution. (clapping.) i'm here with many of our sisters that are going to welcome you to to and welcome to is revolution today not yesterday not tomorrow today.
8:21 pm
>> (clapping). >> in february we rise in country hundreds of countries around the world to show wasn't one boil women and girls looks like we want to shine a light we want to shine a light on the impunity and i think justice that survivors and offenders often face we're here today to start the revolution here in san francisco we rise. >> (clapping). >> we rise through dance to express our joy and communicated and celebrate the fact we've not been dpaetsdz by the violence only made stronger. >> (clapping). >> we rise to show we're determined to create a new kind of consciousness one where violence obey resisted until it
8:22 pm
is unthinkable. >> (clapping). >> i'm so honored to be here i want to welcome everyone my name is the white house of the domestic violence consortium welcome to the revolution we want to start with our first speaker being from the first nation community i want to start with the first people that were in san francisco i want to start with the first nation community i want to welcome our first spectator mr. flores from the pit river nation. >> my name is fy lemon flores
8:23 pm
i'm with the indians education program title vii welcome to san francisco welcome to the revolution >> (speaking foreign language.) >> welcome to the revolution >> (speaking foreign language.) >> all my relation thank you. (clapping.) >> >> (speaking foreign language.) >> (cheering) i'm with came on house.
8:24 pm
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> (cheering). >> i'm emily from the san francisco dependent on the status of women. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> (cheering).
8:25 pm
>> (speaking foreign language.) >> (cheering). >> (speaking foreign language.) >> filipino and san francisco. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> >> (speaking foreign language.) >> freedom free. >> i'm from san francisco. >> hi.
8:26 pm
>> my name is merriam. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> my name is north america did care with the foundation welcome to the san francisco revolution push on. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> that was just a small and beautiful sampling of over one hundred and 20 languages spoken in san francisco so thank you any sisters i really appreciate it (clapping) and when we talk about revolution we have to talk about leadership revolution is moving leadership forward you have to have
8:27 pm
leadership and political will we'll talk about leadership today, i have to say i want to welcome my supervisor a great leaders on this issue of commonwealth and housing and on so many issues the new board of supervisors president supervisor london breed. >> thank you. >> hi, everybody it is so great to see so many smiling faces here today i know that this is a time to celebrate and time to be happy by the way we're standing strong against violence against women and girls. (clapping.) >> sadly there are too many people who are not smiling twrom people that are victims in the hiding in the studios and seeing how large this event continues to grow gives me the reassurance
8:28 pm
that in the future there will be more women here standing strong and more women coming out and saying i need help and support help me to change my life for thought better (clapping.) we it is our responsibility to let victims of crimes know that they have a support system they have policies that will change that will make their lives better we have to continue to push and sigh no more no more victims no more violence if our community and no more violence against young girls and women very have to have a change this gems the reassurance that is changing every single day we're going to make sure that here in the city and county of san francisco that we have a zero,
8:29 pm
zero victims and we're going to keep working hard to make that possible so thank you and welcome to city hall (clapping.) we really don't have an mc i promise you when we talk about leadership we have to talk about partnership i want to see my mayor first and make sure he's here there he is all right. when we talk about leadership and we talk about revolution we have to talk about partnership we have not experienced in recent memories the partnership we have with our mayor.
8:30 pm
(clapping.) revolution does not happen without leadership and not without partnership leadership and partnership together with political will is what the revolution in san francisco is going to be all about this is what helps gal in existence our work and your work and move policy forward to keep women and girls and everybody safe leadership partnership please will our 235sh9 partner and friend it's my honor to recognize our partner many 2, 3, 4 revolution mayor ed lee (clapping). >> all right. bev thank you for your introduction good morning everyone welcome to the people's palace are you r


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on