pages: PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-04-24 | 14 | 1910; he believed it should be upgraded. He discussed the failures of cripple walls, which were part of older buildings. He believed there should be incentives for homeowners to be able to fix those types of conditions. He took exceptions of not having engineers looking at buildings pushing the three-story limit. He expressed concern about poor workmanship by fly-by-night contractors. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Lynch could not see any work being done without an engineer's and architect's stamp, and believed that was a liability problem. He believed this should be the homeowner's cost, and not the City's He would be open to the Planning & Building Department waiving the plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes, but does not want to see any lessening of the fire codes. He was not sure the parking requirements would help the City reach the objective. President Cunningham echoed Mr. Lynch's comments and agreed with Mr. Rutter. He did not believe the City should give away free parking at the expense of seismic retrofitting. He believed they were two important, but different issues. He noted that it was important for an engineer to look at each building, and that each building was different. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that the Board was not being asked to ultimately take action on the codes. Ms. Woodbury noted that was true, and that any changes in Chapter 30 would eventually come to the Board. The other incentives did not need to come to the Planning Board; the parking and design review requirements would come before the Board. Mr. Lynch believed the parking component should come back before the Board as a separate piece. Ms. Kohlstrand believed it was a positive idea to encourage people to make seismic retrofits. She did not believe that relaxing the parking was a bad idea. She was concerned about relaxing the design review requirements unless there was more structure surrounding those requirements. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a fast track process could be added for seismic retrofit projects. Ms. Woodbury did not believe that was realistic, and that it would be more logical to waive fees associated with these projects. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that San Francisco had a low interest loan program, and that they had a difficult time getting people to take them out. Mr. McFann noted that he had examined that program, and that their only incentive was financial, which led to the program difficulties. Mr. Lynch inquired whether the City reviewed engineering structural documents. Mr. McFann confirmed that it did, and that it was not the primary issue of this matter. He added that it was difficult to find an engineer and architect to do small projects such as these, which were expensive. He believed that was a disincentive to do retrofits. Mr. Lynch believed that a piecemeal approach would not be the answer, and he believed this was a Planning Board Minutes Page 14 April 24, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-04-24.pdf |