demolition. if a significant monetary penalty was in place, it might make it prohibitive to engage in grossly exceeding -- this is an area for the board of supervisors, not here. and referral of mi srepresentation and preventing the occurrences. conclusion, d.b.i. stops the work on the projects as soon as they are identified. penalties are assessed as mandated and allowed by the san francisco building code. the planning department based on criteria reviews a new set of permit documents and eventually approved or disapproves a project. based on substantial monetary penalties could make it prohibited to engage in the misrepresentation. i may have doubled up on that one. sorry. if you want to ask about that, that's fine. and we're open for q and a if you have further questions. >> thank you for the presentation. do you want to make comment and then commissioners we can go to public comment and then -- >> joel duffy, senior public inspector, i don't have much to add, patrick's presentation is pretty

as demolition it's new construction and not subject to rent control but an alteration is a demolition and under the planning code, it's my information they'd have to go to the rent board and undo rent control. the assumption is it's rent control but they'd have to got board and make the arguments. [please stand by] pap [please stand by] >> one for each house instead of calling it as multi family buildings. so when the application that the short-term rental office received, it met the requirements of allowing the entire unit to be short-term rated even though it's a separate building. it's like a flat. >> wright. >> where you can only rent out portions that you live in that building whereas you can -- right. so they rented out the entire house and that wasn't allowed. >> they went through the process just like rent control even though it looks like a single family house. >> it was an loud except they could only rent -- they did more on the 30 days. there was a second incident where an advertisement was found offering it for less than 30 days, which resulted in that second and still cur

why is this not a demolition? i don't understand. and then they're getting entitlements, there it is $4 million. here it is under construction. here it is before what it was. it's not a demolition. and then you're selling them, 55 homestead. that's being sold. it's the highest price per square foot in the valley. in the meantime, they get their entitlements and rev up the number. this went from below a million to 4.3. i have another one here, but i'm too emotional and still too sick to talk. but 276 duncan. i don't know what is going to happen there, but they're selling for over $2 million. please do something. please. you can do it. maybe just adjust the numbers so it's harder to do demolition, but get rid of the ands. that would be so simple. i don't understand. but thank you for doing the flat policy. that was really great. and i could tell you about the one for the entitlements, but the one of on casher. this one on state street -- >> ms. -- >> i know, i'm done, i'll stop, i'm ranting and raving. >> president hillis: thank you. m

, i believe there would have been a demolition permit and new construction. this is under planning's more stringent definition of a demolition, which has 50% of verre vertical and 50% of horizontal. >> and i think commissioner richards is asking for more clarification on that. it seems like it would be. and dbi as we've seen is more lax on their own rules, but i think it would be good to understand that. i'm troubled by that. the process of getting here, the fake garage and the dbi and how they interpret this, i think it would be good and helpful to get that information. on the project itself and what has come out of it, so that's the process -- i don't think as proposed it's a bad project. i disagree with some neighbors i think i would go with two units on this, but i would like to see a smaller building on museum way. i know that's in conflict with this interim controls that we have but i think it makes for a better project. currently, i think cramming two units in that building, we'll get either a nonlivable unit on that ground floor because it only has li

anything that involves demolition will create that. i think that demolitions are not appropriate when there's a sound structure. and, you know, i think that the proposed project will affect the neighborhood character. i think it's out of line with neighborhood character. it's not just buildings. we as humans have attachments to places and spaces in this city. we love the city because of the building, configuration, the streets, things that make up our environment. so it is within the cultural district. i think that that neighborhood does have a character. but the most important part for me is the precedent we're setting under the housing accountability act, actually. because it seems that there are structures and lots all over the city that are underbuilt and this structure in itself is not rent-controlled, there are all over the neighborhood, three- to five-unit buildings that are older. if we set a precedent that it's okay to demolish, it will be the end of -- not just the end of that cultural district, but a lot of what makes this c

i don't see it as a necessary demolition. if it was falling down, of course. we just had a discussion about the excelsior and the character and this to me is part of the character of the mission. while it's tiny, it plays an important role. >> commissioner richards: mr. eastwood, we heard that people were living in the house before and they're no longer there. when you purchased the property, was there anybody living in there? >> when i purchased it, it was owner-occupied. and that owner vacated when they sold it to me. >> commissioner richards: and there were no additional tenants? >> no. it was not empty. [inaudible] >> commissioner richards: i will ask you a question in a second. my understanding, i bought it from the owner-occupant. they vacated. i purchased it. i put in tenants of my own. they're still there. right now, they're paying $7,000 a month. they plan on being there through april. >> commissioner richards: thank you. somebody from capp street -- do you have anything to add? come up to the mike. i'm giving you the same chance to make a comment. on

it meets all criteria of 317 for approval of demolition and replacement. the project was before the planning commission because 317 requires conditional approval for demolition. joe purchased the house in 2015 from the estate of the former owner, who owner-occupied until his death in 2014. it's been vacant since of the planning commission found that there was all the relevant data. it is not subject to rent control and no tenants were or are being replaced. it replaces one unit with three and three bedrooms with eight bedrooms. it closely conforms to rm1 zoning and the period urban design. appellants did not oppose demolition at the planning commission or here. they presented no evidence that the planning commission approved its description in approving demolition. what appellants are seeking is removal of the 4th floor, which would eliminate a family-size limit in violation of the housing act and the owner's plan. they got everything they asked for except that 4th floor being eliminated. the planning department realized that would eliminate one of the uni

. >> and just one other thing -- the misrepresentation on plans is as big of a problem as demolition. i don't know if you're getting all that, that's one of the issues that we deal with a lot. someone shows something in a building as existing that's not there. that's a huge issue for us and that's something that -- i'm a senior building inspector, what do you do with -- like if the city attorney wants to get involved, go ahead. i don't think anybody at d.b.i. will ever object to that. and if you want to change the codon the penalties, go ahead, that's fine as well. we're all for that. >> thank you mr. duffy. in regard to, i would close out the comments here but -- first of all thank you for the speakers coming out and discussing the conversation that was badly needed and it's been an ongoing blackmark for our department we have been trying to deal with for many years and i concur with all commissioner comments on the next steps. i want to also point out, as a department we issue thousands of permits a year. and i don't want to minimize this, but i really think what we're dealing with

the inspector investigates, verifies they're beyond the scope of the approved demolition. building inspector often times notes that structural drawings show more demolition than the architectural shows. it's the engineer requirements having to do with -- violation is issued and stop work notice is posted. site is secured and weatherized. the design team usually visits d.b.i. for direction. we have a problem, what do we need to do. contact planning department for next steps. typically new permit applications with plans. to look at this from the eyes of an inspector, the inspector realizes there's a disconnect between the architect and the engineer for the project, there's a miss alignment between the plans. the inspector realizes the structural drawings are showing the compliance with code for structurally potentially fire resistant walls and weatherization. it speaks to the disconnect we find there and that comes from the project design professionals and percolates down to ending up with something that is maybe a little beyond -- but, you know, some of them we see a little

i think it could possibly resolve the issues surrounding tant mounts to demolition. i also think that you should amend the demolition criteria and section 317 to make a little more sense. some criteria should be in a. if a building is sound and habitable, then if it needs that criteria, why should that allow it to be torn down? i never fully understood that. it seems like if a building wasn't sound and wasn't compatible and had violations, maybe it should be torn down. if it didn't, why should that be criteria that allows it to be torn down if it is in good shape. and finally, i ask that you request the zoning administrator to adjust the value for the administrative approval for demolitions in rh-1 districts. it was last adjusted in 2015 and it's currently at $1.63 million or you could just eliminate it as was proposed in the r.e. t. i know you have a lot of stuff. santa has a big sack on his sleigh of things for you to do next year. but i do hope you will do that and i wish you all a really merry christmas and all the best for the few year and particularly you, comm

. >>> well, in pacifica, demolition is underway on a home on the coastline. think everyone in pacifica know where esplanade avenue is. we have been there many times reporting. and now another home is being demolished. >> reporter: yes. sal, it was one of my first stories i ever did when i came to ktvu in 2009. they were talking about tearing down apartment buildings back then. the story continues because erosion is a constant problem along the pacifica coastline. they are taking a little break but they have done part of the demolition of the home already. this is the last home on the oceanside of the street. the 500 block of esplanade. it is the last one standing. they will do the heavy lifting a short time from now. let's show you a view from the cam earlier this morning. you can see the house is about 900 square feet. and about half of it has now been demolished. the owners are out here and watching the process. they have lived here for seven years. and until april of 2016, they actually made a few efforts to try and save the home. they picked up the house

that's why the demolition work that you're seeing is well underway. of the last remaining houses on this side of esplanade avenue to be torn down. it is not a very big house. it is about 910 square feet. they don't expect the demolition to take long. earlier we spoke with the now former homeowners. they say after 2016, after the home had been yellow tagged they actually had the house picked up and moved 20 feet closer to the sidewalk. they had some hope then that would buy them time to stay in the home but the erosion problems continued. >> a million emotions. lots and lots of mixed emotions. it's been a long road. it's been a long wait. it's been a lot of highs and lows. we had a lot of hope when we moved this in april of 2016. >> now, this isn't the first or probably not the last home on esplanade avenue on the pacific coastline to be torn down because of concerns of erosion. in the last ten years there have been two apartment buildings and other homes on esplanade that had to be demolished as well because the cliff below them was also washing away.

. >>> and talk about the demolition work that's ahead?> yes, well the city has set up a chain linked fence enclosing the homes so no one can go inside, they've set aside parking in front to make room of the demolition home later today. she plans to watch the demolition, it's too dark to see it now. but, you can hear the ocean, it's directly on the other side of this hours, if you open the back door to this home, it's a straight drop into the ocean, because of erosion, that has happened over the years, the cliff has warned away basically. this house has been sitting on, the red tags, the home after strong winter storms two years ago, the former owner, they had to turn the home over the city to be demolished. we had to possibly move it to another lot. at this point, this house is considered and lost cause, this is not the first and likely not the last property that had to be vacated in pacifica. there have been erosion concerns, several homes and apartment buildings had to be torn down after winter storms and after cliffs had to be washed a

, so, i would be specifically in charge for, you know, prepping demolitions, but that was just one element of what i did. we still, like the main effort was working by with, and through our local forces. >> mostly you blew stuff up? i would love to be in a bar with you and some guy showing you have, i was an engineer as well. >> a little different context, yeah, 100%. >> now, let me follow-up with one our question, how do i know somebody is a green bere tt, wh people say, i did this important secret stuff, how do i know you are a green beret? >> in general, we are not going around and saying that we are a green beret in a bar. but, i mean, it's easy. at the end of the day, green berets are consultants. warrior diplomats is a name given to a green beret, if you ask them this general, what was your mission or what did you do, it would be along those lines. i worked with a post nation, forces and i directed them. it's a component of what we did. and we are teachers. there's a sustainability, humanitarian effort peace to it. it's not just guns and explosions like you said. >> so, were there ro

i don't know all the ins and outs of the demolition and new construction at this point. >> great. i think this will kind of serve as a guide for the other ones that we get, if we understand what surviving buildings are actually under rent control or not. >> as i said, it's not, but it will be under rent control. >> not? >> it will not, but it's kind of this half commercial -- i mean, that's why i'm not as troubled by it. i think you're kind of getting an equivalent unit. it was almost like an ancillary units that you're getting, and you're kind of using that for residential. >> okay. there's a -- there's a trade off there, but understanding that would be better. i think along the lines of commissioner melgar's comments, i think we should -- would instruct -- i would hope if we continue this, we are to instruct the department to work with the project sponsor on reducing the mass by eliminating the top floor in the garage to create a yard, so i move to continue this matter until... >> two months. >> two months. >> and commissioner moore's point on the adu and making it more livable.

actually the current historical review process encourages unpermitted demolition and construction.f you apply for a permit and the building is over 45 years-old, you are required to get a historical review evaluation that delays the project six to nine months and you have the cost of the hre. from a risk/reward perspective, you save time, you save money and there's no penalty. why would you do -- why would you pull a permit if you have a building over 45 years? it is my hope the b.i.c. will schedule a formal presentation at a future meeting to discuss the root causes of unpermitted work. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, item four commissioner questions and matters. inquiries to staff. may make inquiries to staff for policies, practices and procedures that are of interest to the commission. >> commissioner walker. >> following up on the public comment just issued, i think it's a good assessment of issues we could discuss and maybe we could either schedule it here or at a future joint building and planning commission meeting that we threaten to hav

at this moment, the demolition discussion is also tabled. however, to put this in our memory bank would be rather important. >> you can certainly ask him. go ahead, sir. finish your presentation. >> can you do it if another two minutes? >> i will certainly try my best. there's only two more cases to go through, commissioner. the next example from lumbar street after it was demolished, essentially went from 900 square feet to 4100 square feet and remained a single family. it was zoned rh-3 but was asked to stay a single family. the next property i'd like to go to is 2178 pine street. it was suspended for 22 months. there was a complete demolition except for the facade they can see it's barely being held up. it was also suspended for working beyond the scope of the building permits. a conditional use was held in this case. if i draw you back to the attention of 412 lumbar street, both cases were suspended at the same time. however, that lumbar street was only held up for six po*ns with no hearing. where as pine street had to wait 22 months and

and his mother died of cancer years ago and the montgomery county has not set deadline for the demolition but the folks want the house down as soon as possible. live in bethesda, kevin lewis, abc7 news. >> a teacher hauled away in handcuffs for asking a question. what she wanted to know next at "abc7 news at 6:00". michelle: crime alert after a robbery on camera in hagerstown. stop and take a look. you see the thief with a long gun pointed at the cashier's neck. this was inside the pilot travel center on green castle pike. the clerk was not hurt. nancy: they hope you will burglar. on new year's day he broke in chipotle and cooked a pan on the spicy pulled beef and sat down to eat it washed down with apple juice. he was discovered ho to open up in morning but he ran away and yet to be caught. michelle: now to this shocking video caught on video here. teacher arrested after this. she was asking a question about the superintendent's pay raise at a school board meeting in louisiana. the teacher was told she couldn't ask questions during public comment. so when she tried to ask another questio

not affect tolls at the golden gate and it is operated by other bridge. >>> and they had to stop demolition work on the corner of pleasant valley, and asbestos was found in the concrete. they're trying to work out how to not expose the public. the developer wanted to turn it into a retail center with a multistorey parking job, but changes of habits and construction costs put this project on hold for now. >> i'm glad something is going on. a feeling of frustration, the plan that had been approved isn't going forward. hopefully there will be some residential, finally. >> they're trying to figure out how to make the project work. we think phase 2 will happen at some time. >>> the current lease between the property owner and the developer does not allow for housing, the companies are not commenting on the plans for the property at this time. so, it's still up in the air. >>> the time is 4:45, sal is right over there watching our early commute. how does it look? >> it looks good. i don't find a lot of slow traffic. lets go to the tracy area. i'll show you the traffic here is going to be affected

and it became clear that the demolition was the only option. today they came back to say goodbye. >> lots of memories. that's what we get to keep. they can take down the house but we get to keep the memories. >> the hardest part is seeing all the work get undone. when you do construction you build it to last. and it's nice that it's over now. this has been a long process. and we abandoned it two years ago. so it's been that long just to come to this resolution. >> reporter: over the past decade. several properties have had to be vacated. red tagged and demolished. there are two remaining apartment buildings on esplanade avenue. the city's public works director says they are considered safe since the property owner had a concrete and block ball built below them. >> there were some last year, but they were again like i said, they were quick to react and able to rescuer it. >> reporter: the home was built in 1949 and the former homeowners say there were several homeowners like it lining the side of the 500 block of esplanade avenue. over the past

, tantamount to demolition. it needs to gook to the process that exists with the building departments. i expect to see more articles by j.k. on this because i talked to him and he said this is a big story here and it is about time that it gets told. second issue, it was in monday's paper, it talks about restaurants that opened and closed during the year. again on the front maciej. -- on the front page. and we reach out, morphing and changing. we need to become an experience. you have amazon as a competition. now amazon is opening up stores, but they become more concept stores and kind of show rooms for augmenting their ordering online. perhaps restaurants and bars are the saviour here and we actually have an item on our agenda today in jackson square on the number of restaurants and bars that should be there. the article goes on to say is the number of restaurants last year actually shrunk by 7% because of competition, because of costs and because of delivery services and all that. so, reached all across the gam

people in the community say the fate has been hard to watch but the demolition is the right thing to do. >> it needed to come down. it's dangerous. i don't want to see anything go sliding down into the ocean. >> after today's final demolition, the property and area will now be incorporated into a trail. >>> as we've seen this week in las vegas technology can be cool but consumers want it to be helpful. we found a company at the consumer electronic show that may make our commute shorter. this drone can zip over gridlock on badttery power a loan. >> by car it would be an hour and a half, you can do it in 15 minutes. you'll be willing to pay money. >> it's backed by intel and it's been taking test runs and claims it can travel for 30 minutes at a stretch. they expect to see it in the air in three to five years. >>> now you can see it and sit in it. the tesla model s will be in the show room as of tomorrow. tomorrow the first chance for reservation holders and perspective buyers to see it, there will be only two locations you can get up and close and personal with the car. the price of t

while these mitigation members would reduce, the demolition would be significant, unavoidable. draft e.i.r. analyzed three alternatives. no project, full preservation, and partial preservation. at the august 16, 2017, arc hearing, committee members provided detailed feedback on the preliminary preservation alternatives proposed at that time. the full and partial presentations were suitable. the no project and full would avoid significant impacts to historical resources. partial would not avoid this impact related to the demolition at 150 eureka street, but would reduce the impact compared to the proposed project. earlier i mentioned the handout before you. it includes material in the draft e.i.r. it compares the characteristics of the project and the alternative. the third and fourth pages the historical impact under each alternative. the preservation alternatives at the top. i would like to remind everybody, that a hearing on the e.i.r. is scheduled for january 18, 2018. in order to be responded to in the final e.i.r., comments on the draft e.i.r. must be presented orally at t

but the public would spend much of that same amount in demolition. and there is the historical element. >> you can put on the piers a reference to this is the footprint of the old bridge and talk about the history. that's a benefit. >> >> reporter: when the panel put it to a vote it was two to one in favor of two observation plaf platforms on both sides we don't know how much they will cost but they may be finished by the end of year. in oakland wayne freedman abc 7 news. >> many ideas out there rchlts getting to the weather after sun today rain on the way. >> here we go again. drew with the rain forecast. >>> we'll have the rain mostly in the second half of of the wednesday. we'll start out dry tomorrow but the shower arrive throughout the day. live doppler 7 showing tonight it's a quiet picture. lots of sunshine today and mild temperatures. the picture outside with a live look from the tower, the sparkling lights of san francisco. it's a really nice evening out there. we have calm conditions. but we do bring back the storm in back scale as the next

we're also aware of the recent publicity and public concern about the demolition of historic resources and building permit violations. we want to assure the board that that's not the case here. we have taken every measure to proceed with care and in accordance with all codes and regulations. the villainization of mr. durkin that has occurred here today is inappropriate and inaccurate. he's here and he's willing to answer each and every question the board may have about project construction. with respect to the recent complaint filed consideration the foundation work, mr. durkin, who is a licensed civil engineer, managed the work himself. two chimneys were removed and they were unenforced, unbraced. they could have fallen and caused damage. they were removed to avoid damage. the subject property and the chimneys are not historic resources. no historic resources have been or will be compromised by mr. durkin's work. from the beginning of the project, we've taken every step possible to proceed with care and ensure this project was sensitive to the neighborhood. before submitting applicati

he observed several hundred police officers supervising the demolition of the church, which is one ofhe size of a cathedral, the building served 50,000 its leadership refused to register with the authorities, or with the officially recognised three self patriotic movement. under regulations coming into effect next month, all religious bodies must register their buildings. dr bob fu from the china aid association spoke to us more in depth about why this happened. this church, the latest forced demolition, is another example showing this barbaric action toward these peaceful, innocent believers and the churches. it shows the increasingly deteriorating situation of religious freedom and rule of law in china under the president xi's ruling. really, many suggest it is the worst since the end of the cultural revolution. i mean, all the time, leaders of this church were arrested since this church was built in 2009. and they were sentenced from one to seven years imprisonment for building this church. and many of them were even tortured. and china is now really imprisoning more prisoners of c