Meeting Information

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney DCA); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board of Appeals; Official Court Reporter, Easteller Bruihl.

SPEAKERS: None.

SPEAKERS: President Chin announced that one Commissioner would have to leave early and he would entertain favorably requests for continuance.

ITEM A: 3000 Pierce Street. Letter from Diane LeBow, Requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2002/03/13/1275. Permit Holder: Norman Cheney.

Project: reroof existing garage, install safety railing.

SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield explained that no notice of application or issuance is required for this permit under the Building Code, however he has reviewed the file and the Department will have to revoke the permit if the permit holder doesn’t submit plans that comply with the Code.

ITEM B: 769 North Point Street. Letter from William Ausseresses, requesting rehearing of Appeal V01-233, decided Feb. 27, 2002. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the denial of the subject variance. Project: legalize an existing shed that was built without a building permit in the required rear yard.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Vice President McInerney dissented) to grant the rehearing request. Four votes being necessary to grant such a request, the motion failed, and the rehearing request was denied.

SPEAKERS: William Ausseresses, the requestor of jurisdiction asked the Board to allow him to file an appeal since he did not receive notice of the hearing in his case. He expected mailed notice as required under the Board Rules and no notice ever came to him. He read the Board’s Rule into the record. Jeremy Paul, consultant to the variance holder, said that the requester was very experienced in dealing with the Board and its procedures since he has filed several appeals already and he said that the request was being made to avoid the Notice of Violation requirements being imposed on him. He said there is no basis for the Board to allow a late filing of an appeal in this case. All other appellants have had no trouble understanding their hearing dates from the receipt for fees and the information sheet given to them.

ACTION: Matter rescheduled to June 12, 2002 prior to the meeting.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial and grant the subject permit.

ACTION: Matter withdrawn by the appellant.

ACTION: Matter rescheduled to June 12, 2002 prior to the meeting.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to uphold the denial by the Planning Commission.

SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul, consultant to the Appellant said the revised plans were submitted to the ZA and the plans are Code compliant but there is not yet an agreement with the neighborhood which still opposes the upper floor. He said the existing building is an eyesore and the remodeling will be a great improvement for the neighborhood. He described the revisions made to meet objections to the project. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said that the Planning Commission disapproved the project because there was no trust of the Appellant in the development process. The permit application had bad information and it appeared to be deceptive. Mr. Paul was not involved in the project at that time. The Commission disapproved a different project. The revised plans now at the Board are very different. This new project should go back through planning and have Section 311 notification made to the neighbors. The third floor is still an issue.

In response to the Chair’s question many people in the room stood up to show their support for the Commission’s action.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioner Cullum and Commissioner Saunders dissented) to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Philip O’Brien, attorney for the Rivas family said the representative of the permit holder is also present and they are trying to settle the case but there is no agreement yet. Daniel Bornstein, attorney for the permit holder said that there has been no rent for ten months and his client’s offer was not accepted. The Appellant is recalcitrant.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to close the public hearing and to continue the matter to June 5, 2002, and for the matter to be 1^st on the agenda, with revised plans to be submitted.

SPEAKERS: Laurence Badiner, ZA, explained why the Planning Commission has denied the alteration permit to add to the building. He said it was denied because of the Commission’s desire to protect the historic nature of the building and the fact that the building is non-complying because it projects into the required rear yard already. David Cincotta, attorney for the Appellants, said that the addition would have very little affect on the neighborhood and that one would need a good wind behind to see anything of the addition. He said that the project has no historic impact and that the building is not a designated landmark nor is it in a historic district. He added that the Cow Hollow design guidelines have not been adopted by the Planning Commission and are not part of the Planning Code. Marc Cabi, Appellant and owner with his wife, read a statement to the Board in her absence and said that they are new owners and don’t have the resources of their neighbors and that they have changed their plans many times to accommodate their neighbors. They have much support from the community now. Robert J. McCarthy, attorney for one of the Section 14 Principals, said that the project is inconsistent with the neighborhood character and all the one-family houses have rear yards of 45% of lot depth except 2524 Union Street. The area is a park-like setting and is very unique. The neighbors want to maintain the 45% rear yards to preserve the open space. Douglas Goldman, section 14 Principal said that the project is inappropriate creating mass and bulk out of scale with neighbors and causing a significant loss of mid-block open space. Lucian Blazej, representing other DR requestors (but not

the Section 14 Principals) said that the Foundation for the Architectural Heritage opposes the project because of the building’s historic nature in having been remodeled by Julia Morgan. It also violates the Secretary of the Interior’s standards which he read into the record. He said the distinctive architectural features should be preserved in the 1888 house which is listed in "Here Today". Susan Landlor Keegin, a Section 14 Principal said she has sold her house since the last hearing but thinks approval of this project will set a bad precedent which will threaten this special neighborhood.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANTS: Tanya Fleischer said that this has been a neighborhood battle and that it is difficult for young families who want to stay in the City and this neighborhood. Frank Gerber, president of Cow Hollow Neighborhood Association said the appellants are a wonderful family and an asset to the Community. Kurt Rauzl, said he has known the Cabis as friends and they are respectful of their neighbors. Tanya Rauzi said the Appellants are outstanding friends and citizens. Raul Pomajeb said he cringes when he thinks of the process the Appellants have gone through and that they are wonderful people who show a willingness to work with Planning staff and their neighbors. Pam Hommeyer of 2936 Divisadero said the project will have no impact on the open space she can see and won’t change the character of the area. Appellants went out of their way to not offend the neighbors. Patricia Vaughey said the Appellants have made twelve compromises and the neighbors haven’t bent one inch and they have all gotten to expand their houses.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR COMMISSION: Mark Schlesinger said he lives two doors down and he accepted a Commission DR decision and didn’t appeal it, but kept the 45% rear yard. Kathy Kimball said there is no compromise from the Appellant’s and the project is just too large. Maureen Sullivan said she is a true neighbor and that if approved this project will set a bad precedent and that the compromise offered by Mr. Goldman at the Commission was a good one but not accepted by the Appellants.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the subject variance.

SPEAKERS: Rebecca Robbins said she wants a matching lightwell. Project will block her sunlight. Steve Vettel, attorney for variance holder said that the variance was properly issued because all five of the requirements for a variance have been met. His clients have a small house designed by William Wurster and the addition keeps the integrity of its fine architectural design. He explained how alternative designs wouldn’t work using a model. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the variance is justified with a small modification made to the design and with required reflective paint to maximize light to the neighbors. William Stricklin, Co-Appellant said that no breakfast area is twenty feet long and that the ground floor has been the same since built in 1912. He feels the requirements for a variance have not been met and that no house in the neighborhood has five-foot setbacks. He feels the addition should be cut back.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject determination with a finding that the subject non-conforming use (a deli) was not abandoned or discontinued for longer than 3 years.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, said he has made no visit to the site and explained that this is a determination for a referral from the Health Department. He said that he now sees there is great community support for the Appellants. Kareen Jaber, co-Appellant with his brother, described how his family has conducted the business on the site over the years and how he and his brother now want to conduct a coffee shop which is needed in the neighborhood.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANTS: Joanne Minsky, president of the Oakhill Neighborhood Association said her group and Supervisor Matt Gonzalez want the shop reopened. She said that Officer John Gallagher and Captain Fagin feel this business will help deter crime. Elika Brooks of 363 Webster Street said he is in support of the Good Day Café where there is no loitering or hanging out. Jim Vorrises said he jogs by the site and supports its reopening.