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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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? >> 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. 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 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 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 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. 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? >> ay >> 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).

devices. >> commissioner. regular hearing for february 12, 2015, i'd like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind and please silence all electronic devices. and and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll. >> commissioner president fong and commissioner wu councilmember sharp sxhun commissioner hillis and commissioner johnson and commissioner moore commissioner the items for continuance item one at 1546 on market street draft

environmental review continuance for march 25th and next amendments to the planning code for the special use those in lieu of open space work definite continuance and item 3 for x anothers 888 howard street downtown project authorization for indefinite continuance and c on bush street conditional use authorization is promoted for indefinitely continuance expirations under our discretionary review we've received a request to continue this case dr p at 26 hodges alley discretionary review to march 12.

>> is there any additional public comment o on the items proposed for continuance. >> good afternoon. i'm a resident which san francisco i wish to speak an issue it the proposed legislation by jim in the open spaces. >> sir the only thing you can any public comment? to say the continuance itself not the actual legislation >> my understanding i'm sorry is the commissioners have the option to talk to the turns or actual address the issue underlined. >> they could take up the 345er9 but at this time you can only talk about whether to continue or not continue the matter and i suppose my comments are premature. >> you want us to not continue it today.

>> actually, that's quite helpful i mean, i'll strongly ask you to not continue i do so for 3 reasons the excessive. >> that part was it. >> all we're voting on whether or not to take it outside and mare it today or continue it if we take it off you have to we are many public comment. >> i'll vw ask you to discuss the this. >> any public comment on the items proposed for continuance seeing none, public comment is closed commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i have a couple of questions in regards to item 3888 howard which is the alteration it alteration of the conditions of the existing hotel not constructing another won those are murder together do we have any idea of continuance.

>> we're not we're in discussions with the supervisors and the property owners policies and procedures they've asked for a continuance. >> nooiblg i'll ask to continue item one to the date specified and two and three indefinitely and item 4 and continuance and item number one number 14 to march 12. >> a second. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much okay. so i second the motion and then to the public comment in jeopardy we're not going back and forth the items proposed for turns any time we don't get the materials in our packet for today, if an item is proposed for turns it's hard to pull it off the calendar we only have it

not in on the agenda. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to continue items as proposed. >> commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you under commission matters item 5 - >> the television is not working. >> the sfgovtv has some consists conflicts there are two super seated we're record but not televised their recording us in the back i apologize for the inconstituents convenience. >> commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> they must be extremely for important if in their superseding us (laughter). >> i was embraced by what we

learned paul the captain of the european repaired came up that took part decided to stop at a beautiful beach and park his car and walk up ocean beach to have lunch and came back and broken into his clubs were stolen instead of practicing she she's he's spending all day getting new clubs this is a major problem in san francisco and the land use part reasons you didn't why families move to other areas is that about crime and the punts are less than i cannot for car thieves get 10 days and that's one the captains from the stations said it's ridiculous and boosters get even less there's no reap not to graek

into cars in the daylight he ever your caught you're not going to have nothing done so that's the reason why we're lingus families and prop m 2u for the critique for the memo we got it's not a calendar item he wanted to ask some answers succeeds to be respond to by staff the first i wanted to find there if there's any idea to get an opinion from the district attorney's office from the part of the office annual limit that are under discussions mr. taylor the intufbt of the amazed u amazes i amounts that have been dmertd to 23407b office use they're not no office anymore and this has to do the demolition the building and the new building you have to take

out the new part and not the demolished 0 office space i needed an opinion on those two things thirdly a little trouble parking today, i wants lucky to get a space garage has best practices terminal he ever since puc the spaces are not allocated for puc this is the depay any attention if you don't build parkinson's people from puc have plenty of cars she should have put parking in the building and many of us in the court house which are not being able to park and have a difficult parking because of our lack of planning and finally i visited summit 8 hundred i toured their units i was impressed but just to give you

an idea of the costs involved the unit are from under a million dollar up to $2 million but they're very nicely designed about that minimum of 13 or 14 hundred square feet and up all of them have the master bedroom at least on a different level all two level unit and they have two car parking for each other and most have 2 1/2 with the you'll the sleeping unit on the upper floor with a choice of condominium sharing the upper floor or row of house and fascinates which i assume are somewhat detached you have to be realistic when we look at projects and people i keep saying you have to build it for less and price 2 lower when the

economy at scale their probably selling these things as low as and possible can and they have to build for less if you're doing o a project with if one or two unit you can understand how expensive if you can't spread the psychologist i was happy to see it begins to address some of the shortages working hard or regarding homes that are acceptable for family that have adequate parking and i think they have a big demand and continue to build all the rest of them commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much so just for the i was reviewing the eir 1546 market street and 1564 market street and just really quickly one the things it is awesome there's a map that

shows the project area as well as all the new muni or other picking up public transit stops within a half-mile radius we questioned a map for allocations within the authorization we were looking at for a decision i'd like to request that staff or through the chair request it staff provide a similar map of public transit for all large projects thoogsz with the map we're currently getting. >> commissioner moore. >> i'd like to report to the commission that the subcommittee for the rules met together for the first time and time was much too short we'll be meeting again on march second and report with more detail. >> march 5th and march 5. >>