Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, Allam El Qadah and John McInerney.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (SBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the meeting.

SPEAKERS: 1. John Sanger attorney for the appellant in two appeals scheduled for February 21, 2001 Appeals 00-198 and 00-199 for the properties at 1701 and 696 Pennsylvania Avenue requested the Board to dismiss both appeals as they have done in a similar case. President Chin asked staff to schedule the two appeals early on that calendar and waived the requestor’s attendance at the hearing since he said he was unable to attend that night. 2. Jim Reid reported to the Board he intended to appeal the closing of the Grocery Outlet which served the people of the City, especially low income families. He wants to save the store and has collected 500 signatures on his petition.

SPEAKER: President Chin welcomed the executive secretary back from his medical leave and thanked Linda Avery for her efforts filling in during the absence of the executive secretary.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: 1. Julian Lastowski, attorney for Johanna Coble requested the Board to allow her to file a late appeal because she had no notice of the issuance of the permit to alter the fire station next door to her house. 2. Peter Wong for Department of Public Works explained the history of this project. 3. James Lee of the SFFD explained the need for the alterations to the firehouse. 4. Johanna Coble said she had no notice of the permit issuance and had spent $7,000 for an engineer to advise her. 5. Lawrence Badiner (ZA) explained why no notice of issuance was required by Section 311 since it was not for a residential building. 6. Commissioner Cullum said she hoped the City would work with Ms. Coble on the acoustical issues.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to CONTINUE the matter to March 21, 2001 at the request of the appellant with the agreement of Department of Building Inspection.

ACTION: WITHDRAWN by appellant prior to hearing.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permits with the following CONDITIONS agreed to by the parties in the February 7, 2001 letter; the chain link shall have redwood slats; and subject to access being allowed by appellants.

SPEAKERS: 1. King Ma, appellant described the drainage problem presented by the proposed construction. 2. Eliza Ngo, co-appellant, described the concrete slab in the yard which is used by children and her concerns with the height of the proposed building and the agreement offered by the permit holders. 3. Jack Wholey, attorney for permit holder, explained the project and reiterated the offer made by his client. Public Comment in support of Appellants: 3. Rebecca Silverberg of the district improvement association spoke against the project because of the parking congestion it would cause. 4. Irene Johnson of 552 London Street, spoke against the project because of parking problems and the view blockage it would cause. Public Comment in support of project: 5. Andy Alfaro said the parking problem was caused by those living in the houses on London Street, while the project met the parking requirements of the Code. 6. Stephen Taylor said the project was in character with the Excelsior District and attested to the character of the permit holder who helped his neighborhood business over many years. 7. Christopher Hesse spoke in support of the project. 8. Edward Jackson lives across the street from the site and said he felt more apartments were a good idea for this neighborhood. 9. Bill Rodriquez said that this new housing was needed badly and that the project would not cause parking problems. 10. Joe O’Donoghue said it was ironic that immigrants opposed the project because of density and this site was good for apartments because it is on a transit corridor. 11. Eamon Murphy, a contractor, said the project was needed. 12. Rafael Torres-Gil (SBI, DBI) explained how the drainage worked and how the concrete slab could be reduced in size to improve natural drainage. 12. Lawrence Badiner (ZA) explained how the project met the height requirements of the Code even with the stair penthouse.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-2 to overrule the department and reinstate the permits. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The determination was UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Rafael Torres-Gil (SBI, DBI) explained the decision being appealled. 2. John Sanger, attorney for appellant asked the Board to overrule the decision of DBI on the grounds his client had no intent to demolish the building without permit and the penalties were draconian. Public Comment for Appellant: 3. Joe O’Donoghue described the history of the provisions concerning illegal demolitions and asked the Board to overrule since this was not the sort of case meant to be covered. 4. Alice Barkley explained the history of the legislation. Public Comment for Department: 5. Stephen Williams said the case was clearly an illegal demolition and urged the Board to uphold. He referred the Board to Roberta Caravelli’s brief. 6. Jake McGoldrick said he spoke as a private citizen and not as a Supervisor and that the law was clear and a replacement house meeting the Code would be profitable. 7. Hiroshi Fukuda said this was the first time the ordinance was being imposed and that no death penalty was being imposed.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with the third version of the amended plans.

SPEAKERS: 1. Glenn Gee, appellant, explained his objection to the height of the project which almost makes the house a four-story building out of character with the neighborhood. 2. William Wolcott, permit holder explained generation of the plans and how they have been revised to protect the neighbors with the third revision showing deletion of the stairwell penthouse.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner McInerney dissented) to overrule the department for lack of proper notice. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The permit was UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Matthew Hindman, attorney for appellant, said the tenants in the building including his client had not been informed of their right to appeal by the owner and that the Ellis Act notice was being litigated at present. 2. Elizabeth Colby, attorney for permit holder said the proposed work was to repair fire damage and seismic work. 3. Rafael Torres-Gil (SBI, DBI) reported on the two citations issued to the owner for failure to comply with earlier notices of violation.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Ana Daniel, appellant said she wanted to save the two trees and showed pictures of mature trees all over the City. 2. Marc Gille, arborist for owner explained why these two trees should be replaced since they are now safety hazards. 3. Paul Sacamano, urban forester for DPW explained how the two trees were a threat to public safety and why DPW has approved the permit to replace them with a suitable species.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the department and GRANT the variance with findings as submitted by the appellants.

SPEAKERS: 1. Lawrence Badiner (ZA) explained why it was not appropriate to replace the deck when it can be repaired and that he felt it was a hazard and there is a liability issue. 2. Rafael Torres-Gil (SBI, DBI) explained Building Code provisions regarding replacement of existing non-complying decks and advised the Board as to the provisions regarding deck replacement. 3. Jonathan Browning, co-appellant explained the dilapidation of the deck and how parts have been failing off, endangering those below and the occupants of the house.

ACTION: WITHDRAWN by appellant prior to hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to February 28, 2001 for site visit by Commissioner El Qadah.

SPEAKERS: 1. Lawrence Badiner (ZA) said he had withdrawn some of the denials and that once the variance was approved 99% would be approved by him. 2. Jane Martin, co-appellant, said she therefore withdraws the appeal.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (President Chin recused) to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator and GRANT the variance.

SPEAKERS: 1. Alice Barkley, attorney for appellant, explained why the proposed building would interfere with her client’s proposed new construction next door and urged the Board to deny the variance application. 2. Lawrence Badiner (ZA), explained why he granted the variance and how it met the five requirements for granting a variance. Public Comment in support of variance holders and Zoning Administrator: 3. Anthony Way said he supported the variance since the appellants intended to live in the house and the five requirements were met. 4. Jose Partida of 316 Shotwell, said he had no objection to the project. 5. Joe O’Donoghue spoke in support of the project for which the variance would be a favorable precedent. 6. David Cincotta said he has known the variance holders a long time and that they will create a high quality building.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to ADOPT the budget as amended that includes funding for a part-time Assistant Executive Secretary.

SPEAKERS: 1. Linda Avery, acting executive secretary of the Board presented the staff’s proposed budget for FY 2001-2002. Public Comment in favor of proposed budget: 2. Alice Barkley spoke in support of increases in the proposed budget and said she thought they were long overdue and that the space allotted the staff was impossible to work in and the staff positions should be upgraded. 3. David Cincotta said he supported all that Ms. Barkley had said, and to provide an assistant to the executive secretary would be an excellent idea.

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m.

___________________________________