Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 3, 2010 6:00pm-6:30pm PST

7:00 pm
from city departments. we are torn and by representatives from the planning department and the planning commission. at this time, and will go over them meeting guidelines. the board request that you turn off all funds and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. the board's rules of presentation are as follows.
7:01 pm
you each have seven minutes to present the case and to 3 minutes for rebuttal. people in the affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within this time. . people who are not affiliated with the parties set up to three minutes each to address the board. to assist the board and accurate preparation of bennett's you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or a business card when you come up to speak. they are available on the left side of the podium. we welcome your comments and suggestions. if you have any questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules, or hearing scheduled, please speak to me during the break or after the meeting or at the board office. this meeting is broadcast on sfgtv cable channel 78.
7:02 pm
now we will swell or -- swear or affirm in all those who wish to testify. please stand, raise your right hand after you have been sworn in court affirmed. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? thank you. we have one housekeeping item. item number6 regarding the property at 2514 23rd avenue has been a ministry to flee dismissed. -- administratively dismissed. is there any member of the
7:03 pm
public which is to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? please step forward. >> good afternoon. commissioner goh, i did not ask for a copy of this resume because i believe you are an asset. at the december 8th hearing, the commissioners asked you to find out if they are or are not qualified. you said you would look into it and left them no. you did not mention a word at another hearing. i did send you a request and you said that this is attorney client privilege. the press secretary says the same.
7:04 pm
these actions just proof you have something to hide. your silence speaks volumes. these commissioners did not qualify for the job. i want to speak to the people in the room and on television, the people have a right to know what you discovered. if these commissions on not qualified, then they should not be passing judgment on people's projects because they are harming people for many years to come and maybe even centuries. i asking you now what the director tell you regarding the qualification of these commissioners and what did you find out about this matter? i have proven that they are not qualified for the position and i
7:05 pm
will continue to prove this. the people have a right to know the determination and if these commissioners do not qualify if they are passing judgment. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good evening. tonight, i want to thank the board for their clarification of the issues during the appeal of the permit. each of you contributed a better understanding of the components of my neighbors project. i learned for the first time of the allocations that my house and his or moving down 23rd ave. i learned how -- ehud -- i
7:06 pm
learned how -- reviewed the property. i hired two experts look at the project plan and all relevant information. the reports from the professionals identified a number of important issues say that the construction will likely affect my house unless engineered property -- properly. most importantly are the shocking conclusions on experts.
7:07 pm
this must be cancelled due to fraud and violations of the california law for incompetence and negligence. the architect stated "that the emissions and heirs are delivered to avoid the scrutiny of the inadequate and are meant to reveal." the evidence for these statements are in the report. these are brought to the report. you were misled by the fraudulently prepared planned testimony. i could not have investigated this without your help. i am deeply grateful for your
7:08 pm
review of the project. we will insist -- assist in the procedures to prevent this from ever happening again. i want to thank you for in lightning me. thank you. >> thank you. >> i was recently retained by the owner of the 23rd street building that you heard about. i don't have a lot to say about it. what i learned is that the owner does not believe any of the allegations are true and the allegations have nothing to do with the reasons why there is no complete environmental review and why he wore not hearing it
7:09 pm
tonight. i want to make it clear that if my client does something additional, it might come before you and you don't thinking it is appropriate. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm the director of san francisco open government and i have several slides on the screen and i would appreciate if they can be shown. i will share with you on
7:10 pm
interesting thing for me. one of my favorite places is "a man for all seasons," and my favorite scene was the chancellor of england have been a discussion with -- paul is doing everything he could to avoid answering a question which he felt could put him into legal trouble. since this will go on for a long time, i think that that is very appropriate. the california business code says appointees shall not be employes of the jurisdiction and
7:11 pm
shall consist of members who are qualified and knowledgeable in the california building standards code and applicable ordinances. if anyone thinks of that, it would have to make sense. one of the commissioners has a bachelor's and master's in architecture and he could be considered to be a fair member as far as qualifications. then we have president peterson who is an attorney and the director of the san francisco zoo. the was knowledge she has, there's nothing to indicate any knowledge of building construction ordinances or variances. then we have member garcia who
7:12 pm
if you look down, he ran a carpet business, he was the sole proprietor a couple of times and teaching for a couple of universities on very short notice but nothing having to do with us. without any basic knowledge, do become a rubber stamp for the departments to come before you such as planning and building. you don't have the basic knowledge to challenge them and as a matter of temperament, most of you don't have any indication that they will challenge anything from them anyway. >> is there any other public comment? >> thank you.
7:13 pm
i am an architect here in the city. on the case that is no longer before you. it has come to my attention that some of the information that was provided in the plan that was given to the department of building inspection is either false or misleading. if one compares the permit history of a building shows as constructed with a permit, that is what is in fact existing. if i have added a backroom to my house without a permit and that it plans that this is existing, the use of the word existing is not correct. how this happened, i am not entirely certain because i was not part of a process that produced those plans. i know that a licensed professional that stance plans
7:14 pm
has said that either all the work is prepared by them or at their direction. that is so important because with buildings, life safety issues comes into play. one needs to know if checking plans extent these are filled out the best of the ability of licensed professionals. in this case that i mentioned, the true facts can only be known by an extensive review of the permit history and -- when we come into your hearing room and lease rate to tear -- and we swear to tell the truth, we take that seriously.
7:15 pm
recently on one of my own cases, i did not submit plans to you because on a previous case to you that i had been a party to, the owner of that project did not submit a plan. i learned differently. that makes me wonder why was it that those plans were not in the room that night? why was it that no one had to stand up and swear that those represented the truth? in the case similar to the one i'm speaking to you about tonight, the delegation could be made that the engineer of record to did not in fact either prepare or ask if those plans to be prepared or our firm that the plans were reviewed and approved to their satisfaction. this is a problem. somehow the bill the department
7:16 pm
needs to get a handle on it. thank you. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, we move on to commissioners questions. >> mr. sanchez, what are the procedures around rescinding these? >> in this case, it was seen by mental officer which issued the determination that the category should be rescinded and that should be for two reasons. first, the permit holder was seeking to have this withdrawn from the department of inspection. there is also concerns the department had over the accuracy of the plans. for those reasons, we recommended the categorical
7:17 pm
exemption. >> is able to be appealed? >> not to my knowledge. >> thank you. >> any other commissioners? >> august 11th, 2010, a member of the public alleged that a building permits had been improperly canceled and the board of appeals did have jurisdiction over the matter. i asked the executive director to follow up and we received the letter that the building permit had been improperly canceled and the board of appeals has jurisdiction and the building permit has been reinstated. >> is any public comment on this item? we will move on to item number 3
7:18 pm
which is the adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of september 15th, 2010. >> i will move to adopt the minutes. >> is any public comment on the minutes? >> many people unfortunately in san francisco city government seemed to feel that minutes are something that they are forced to do by law. they allow people who are unable to attend the meeting to read the minutes on your web site and determine what actions were taken. one other thing that they can do is they can courage public participation in government decisions and attendance at
7:19 pm
public meetings where they may have a chance to speak about an item which concerns them. my real concern is one that i will be filing a complaint against the board with the sunshine commission because basically you get one word for definitions of people. someone gets up and talks for three minutes and you put it down for three words. i don't think that that is the intention of the minutes. that is not -- you should get their impression on this. one of the things that i would like every member to know, if you would like to put this into the minutes, you can put a statement which must be included by the board in their myths as under the sun shine ordinance.
7:20 pm
basically, i will be submitting 150 word statements. believe me, i've taken the library commission and to the arbitration board and a couple of other boards to sunshine and this is very clear for those enumerated in the charter. they are required to put that in. the interesting thing is that they all put on their agendas and know your rights under sunshine. hong it person is entitled to do something and they will fight you about it. i will put it in next time and see if it gets into the minutes and if it does not, we will go to sunshine about that.
7:21 pm
every single citizen of this city should have the opportunity to exercise his or her constitutional rights and each one of you took an oath of office to defend and protect the constitution of the nine states and of california which guarantees citizens the right to express themselves and if you don't put in anything which reflects what citizens have to say, we can make sure that -- >> you have the minutes. is there any other public comment? commissioners, i will call the motion to approve the minutes. >> aye. >> aye.
7:22 pm
>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> moving on to item four, this is a jurisdiction request. we received a request that the board takeover jurisdiction of bpa 2009/10/21/9431. i understand that to the person who requested this might request a continuance regarding this. are they here? please step forward. do you want to proceed with the request to reschedule this
7:23 pm
matter? >> there is another permit that revises the original permit and that is in planning. >> yes or no. you want to have time allotted to you? >> yes. we can give each party three minutes to address that and depending on the results, we can take the matter or not. >> thank you, madam president, commissioners. there are several permits that have been issued on this property. the most recent one revised the original permit. some we have a number of questions regarding the accuracy and whether it concludes the truth and the whole truth in terms of what to the applicant intended to do. i would prefer to have advised
7:24 pm
plan available for review at to comment on whether or not we would like to bring this matter before the board. >> thank you. >> are you rescinding your request? >> no, i am not rescinding, buying here to speak tonight on this but in discussion, one of the options was that we could request a continuance to this hearing said that i could have available to me the revised plans which are in the planning department and cannot be viewed or seen by anyone. >> none of your comments went to the jurisdiction? >> this is just to discuss the rescheduling.
7:25 pm
>> we can hear from the permit holders next. >> hello, i'm the owner of 911 union street. my neighbor is here as well. just so i understand, i have three minutes to speak on the continuance and then on the merits. >> we would like to submit that the request be denied. we have submitted written reasons as to why the request should be denied but the basic premise is that mr. kravitz had access to those plans. the plans are freely available from the apartment of zoning inspection. he could have called us to get a copy of the plan.
7:26 pm
our architect is here to speak on this matter and just to make sure that we did everything correctly. we engage an attorney to assist us in this process. we ask sure station request be heard as scheduled. i would like to ask my architect to come in and speak on the revisions. >> hello. the revision that was referred to was never followed through. there was some discussion about prefiguring part of each country of the decks so we applied for the permit revision and this is decided to be withdrawn.
7:27 pm
there is no revision of june 6th. >> is there any department the comments? >> is to any public comment on the rescheduling issue? >> commissioners. >> if the issue of revision is a moot than i am prepared to hear it tonight. >> can we hear from one of the department's about that issue?
7:28 pm
>> i tried to check on the tracking system on line. >> technically, the commission revision is still in the system. >> sorry to interrupt, technically it would be in the system, we applied for it but it was never reviewed by anyone. we started the process and then they had to let us know. >> we had to apply a couple of
7:29 pm
days ago to remove from the system but we had to get the letter to sign. it might be in the computer system but it was never issued nor was it paid for. >> do you have the letter? >> i don't have a letter on me. i can get it for you. >> i have another question for the architect. is the construction complete? >> the construction is complete and it has been signed off on. >> technically, until we actually have the revision


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on