Meeting Information

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

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA, OCA); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

SPEAKERS: None

SPEAKERS: None

ITEM A: Debate and discussion concerning proposals to amend the Board Rules regarding the briefing schedule, speaking time allotment at hearing, and other issues.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt a revision of the Rules so that a sign-in sheet may be provided at hearings, but is not required. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reject changes to the current oral testimony time limits. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to reject changes to the current page limits on briefs and exhibits. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt the following revisions to the Rules: a) to strike the Appellant’s Supplemental Statement; b) to have a briefing schedule that entails a one-page letter at filing, an Appellant’s Brief due fifteen (15) days from filing, a Permit Holder’s Response Brief due seven (7) days after receipt of the Appellant’s Brief, and the Appellant’s Reply due ten (10) days after receipt of the Permit Holder’s Response Brief, and with all cases to be scheduled within 45 days from filing. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt the following additional revisions to the Rules: written requests for rehearing shall be limited to 6 pages with unlimited exhibits, with the response to the request for rehearing due ten (10) days after filing of said request; and written requests for jurisdiction shall be limited to 6 pages with unlimited exhibits, with the response to the request for jurisdiction due ten (10) days after filing of said request.

SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor speaking for herself said she is troubled by limit on exhibits and attachments to briefs because the Planning record needs to be included at time and is often lengthy. She also objects to manipulation of hearing dates of appeals of Notice of Violation; there is too much flexibility for the appellants in violation. She reminded the Board theirs is the only record parties have. Dick Millet from Potrero HiIl said the rules favor developers who are not cooperative and the neighbors need more time and protection in the appeal process. Jeff Demma said the appeals process is very complex and time consuming. Protestors used legal counsel since citizens haven’t the time to meet all the rules which are overwhelming. He opposes reducing time for document submittals. Jeremy Paul said he supports changes in the Rules and feels there is too much dead time in the process and earlier submittals will put real issues on the table earlier in the process and lead to permit holders being more willing to reach accommodation with protesters. Andrew Zacks said that limiting exhibits to briefs would be a problem because it would limit submittal of relevant evidence. He said if a limit is imposed that there should be a way of requesting permission to submit additional exhibits.

ITEM B: Debate and discussion concerning a proposal to request that the Board of Supervisors amend the Municipal Code and allow the Board of Appeals to conduct public hearings without an official court reporter.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to refer the matter to the Board of Supervisors.

ITEM A: 1432-1434 Kearny Street. Letter from Steve Atkinson, attorney for permit holders Nan & Nathan Roth, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 00-258/259/260/261, Cooper & Kirkham vs. DBI, PDA & Kuhn vs. DBI, PDA, heard August 22, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to REVOKE both permits. Appellants: Josef Cooper, Tracy Kirkham, and Alan Kuhn. Project: To demolish a garage, and construct a three-story two-family dwelling.

ACTION: This matter was rescheduled to January 9, 2002 prior to hearing at request of parties..

ITEM B: 700 Vermont Street. Letter from Edward Mullins, agent for Hazel & Raymond Guaraglia, Requestors, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2001/06/20/1935 (demolish existing non-compliant residential units per NOV 200114983; remove all utilities to ground level; convert to original commercial space) for the purpose of appealing the penalty associated with said permit application.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to grant jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield said that if work done without permit was done by a previous owner or otherwise met the DBI guidelines the penalty would not be more than two times the regular fee and the Building Code has no time period for appealing for refund of penalty. The appellant Edward Mullins rose to speak but didn’t testify.

ITEM C: Adoption of a Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) for the property at 2836 Washington Street, Appeal 01-138, 2836 Washington Street LLC vs. DBI, PCD, heard December 5, 2001. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to overrule the denial by the Planning Commission, and grant the subject permit on condition that the doors to the rear decks be removed and replaced with windows, and with an NSR to be recorded prohibiting the use of the two roof areas as decks, with said NSR to be adopted on December 12, 2001.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to January 16, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Rene Peinado, permit holder, said that the issue is clear and simple.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to reschedule the matter to March 20, 2002, and for the life/safety issues referenced by the DBI to be remedied immediately.

SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, reported on the safety issues at 1762 La Salle as requested by the Board and said that he made the visit with the permit holder’s attorney and the unit is only marginally habitable but with minimum alterations would have no safety problems. Harold O’Brien, attorney for the owner said his client has agreed to most of the minor alterations pointed out by the chief inspector. David Bornstein attorney for the tenant said that the unit is terribly substandard and the ventilation is inadequate. He said the litigation continues.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to continue the matter to January 9, 2002, with the public hearing closed, and for the Appellants, § 14 Principals and Planning Department to try to come up with a compromise.

SPEAKERS: Gerald Green, Director of Planning, said the issue in the appeal is access to light and air by the neighbors. There have been three light analyses made for this case. If upper floor of proposed addition is reduced in size it will minimize the impact of the addition on the property to the south. This will impact size of proposed bedrooms. The planning staff approved of this addition for the applicant’s growing family. John Sanger, attorney for appellants said that the Planning staff had recommended approval of the project but the Commission had denied it anyway. He advised the Board to make a site inspection to see how reasonable the proposal is. He said it meets the Residential Design Guidelines. Graham Maloney, attorney for Garcia, an abutting neighbor who had requested DR, introduced Mr. Garcia’s architect Larry Paul who explained how the proposal is out of scale with its neighbors. Paul LaBerge, light consultant for the neighbor, explained how the proposed addition will cast shadows on his client’s property.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION: Father Thomas McDonnell said the project needed to be revised because the sunlight is so necessary for Mr. Garcia.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANTS: Joe O’Donoghue said he feels light should be provided for a house by its own light wells. He said Mr. Garcia’s project added shadows to the appellants’ property and that the expansion is needed for Dr. Ikeda’s aged disabled mother who is wheelchair bound and has a caregiver. He said the ADA protects projects like this one. Bob Planthold said the Commission is not responsive to the accessibility issue and here was speaking doublespeak as in George Orwell’s 1984. Brad Moring, M.D. read a Mayor’s Proclamation for the appellant for all his community medical efforts. Mary Bulata, architect, said she has worked on affordable housing projects with Mrs. Ikeda as well as housing for the disabled. Here the Ikedas were trying to provide a home for his disabled mother. She has reviewed the plans and agrees they are appropriate for the family’s needs and they meet ADA requirements for accessibility. Anita Sanchez said the addition is to accommodate the disabled mother and her caregiver and the project is totally in character with the neighborhood. James Zuckerman said there are no houses with setbacks in the neighborhood. Ed Dollard, the father of Lisa Ikeda said that the project is within the ordinance. Dennis Cartland said he is a contractor who has built many additions in the City and he has never seen such setbacks required as here. Norman Bouton said you can’t build anything in the City without blocking someone’s light and air. The three light studies are all different and light consulting is just an art and not a science. Lisa Gelfand said she is an architect practicing in the City and that the project meets all Codes and the Commission makes it impossible to practice when the project is not near the maximum envelope allowed yet is being cut back. There is a civil rights issue here. She said the access problem trumps all other issues under the FHA. This family needs larger rooms for their circumstances. Barbara Smith said she has been developing housing for twenty-five years and she supports the project John Wilkinson said the Commission’s action is disturbing and sets an awful precedent as well as adding to the cost of the project. Veronica Spence said she has lived on Beach Street for fifty years and this is the first time there has been quibbling over a proposed addition and the Chans took three and a half years to remodel. Issa Eshima said that Dr. Ikeda had a day named for him to show the City’s appreciation for his efforts. Harry Joel said he lives on Beach Street. He thinks what the Ikedas had to go through is a travesty. Shadowing issue is ridiculous because there is so much fog in the neighborhood. Tucker Benton said the Ikedas live there but Garcia doesn’t. He was shocked by Planning decision. Edward Dollard said he has sixty letters supporting the Ikedas and he read a letter of support from fire fighter Robert Gurman. Vilwillers, architect for the project said the new ceiling replicates the ceilings in the rest of the house. Bob Chan, a Section 14 principal said that the 4,000sf expansion is too much for the area and Planning Commission was correct in disapproving plans which are for a family of five people. He said 73% of his light will be lost if proposed addition is built. .

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to continue the matters to January 9, 2002 with the public hearing still closed, and for these cases to be first on the calendar.

SPEAKERS: Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellant Empress Hotel, requested a rescheduling so that his client will have the benefit of a five-member Board. Randy Shaw, attorney for the determination holder Tenderloin Housing Clinic, objected to a continuance but asked that if it is put over that it be put first on the calendar.

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the appellant.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to uphold the subject permit on condition that the roof deck include an eight-foot lattice fence with vines along the side of the roof deck that faces the appellant’s property.

SPEAKERS: Robin Rudderow, attorney for appellant said that the drawing given to the neighbors used different scales for project and for neighbor’s house, and is therefore very misleading. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for permit holder, said that the drawing wasn’t part of the plans and house was built according to plans and not to drawing. Carla Johnson, architect, said that the roof deck wasn’t on the plans before the Planning Commission as the DR hearing and her client agrees to the roof deck if the height of the roof is lowered three feet as shown on the drawing. The DR hearing was never held and no agreement was recorded. She objects to client called intransigent in the appellant’s brief. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for permit holder said the appeal is only for the permit covering the second floor deck. He said the plans had been reviewed by Ms. Rudderow. There is nothing wrong with the proposed deck and the only issue is loss of privacy and there is eleven feet between the two houses. His client suggested putting a wall along the property line to screen the view into windows; and the appellant responded in the negative, saying he wants the roof lowered three feet even though it is now built. Thus the appeal. Larry Badiner, ZA corrected an earlier statement and said that there was no Section 311 notification required for the deck permit application, nor for the dormer.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Ambrose Luk, appellant, said he opposes the permit for his neighbor’s rear extension because it extended far beyond his building. He said the permit holder’s fire had damaged his house and he has no insurance. The survey was paid for by him and the two other appellants. Project three inches over the property line encroaches over his property line. He is concerned about losing privacy and warmth in his son’s room from sunlight. Permit holders claim that downstairs is for their parents but he thinks it will be rented. Patrice Fambrini of Jaidin Consulting speaking for the permit holder said that she has filed an application to legalize and replace the rear addition, 800 square feet above the garage with much open space on this large lot remaining. The permit meets all Code provisions and all the requirements of the Commission for revisions have been incorporated in the plans before the Board. She said her client has two children and aged parents living with them and they need additional living space. All windows along the Luk property line have been removed and an NSR has been recorded restricting use of the house to single family. Sue Wong, permit holder, said that the survey cost her three thousand dollars and has been delivered to the appellant and the other neighbors.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioner McInerney absent) to reschedule the matter to February 6, 2002 and for it to be placed first on the agenda.

SPEAKERS: Jackie Holland, appellant, asked for a continuance to a date when all five members are present since Vice President Saunders had left for the night. She is available February 6, 2002. Chuck Louden, permit holder said that he is available on February 6, 2002.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to January 30, 2002 with no more rescheduling.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the appellant prior to hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to uphold the subject permit on condition that the permit holder clean up the backyard and remove all structures in the backyard pursuant to Building and Planning Code requirements.

SPEAKERS: Adrienne Lewis, co-appellant, said she opposes project because the neighborhood is already congested with cars and she asks that Planning Commission require more than one space per dwelling unit. Emily Tam, co-appellant, said the owner has built an illegal structure in his back yard and it is more than 100sf in area with a rusty metal roof that is an eyesore. She showed photos of the yard. She said the permit holder is not a good neighbor and there has been no communication between them.

Kevin McDonough, attorney for the permit holder, described his client as a hard working single mother and he said there is no legal justification to deny the permit. He said he has told her to keep her dong on best behavior and tethered in the yard and clean it up and start a dialog with her neighbors. He said sheds don’t need permits and there are no SFPD, SFDPH problems. His client is friendly and generous and has her extended family living with her.

No public comment for either side.

Larry Badiner, ZA, said the Code allows on rear yard an obstruction eight feet in height and up to 100 square feet in area. Here it was measured and it meets the Code, however, multiple sheds concern him. Situation is a violation of Section 202 because yard is offensive.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders absent, Commissioner McInerney recused/absent) to reschedule the matter to January 16, 2002, and for it to be the first case on the agenda.

SPEAKERS: Emily Joy Benkert, appellant, asked for a continuance for a five member Board but said she is not available on January 9, 2002, but she is available on January 16, 2002. David Silverman, attorney for the permit holders asked for January 9 but agreed to have the case heard on January 16, 2002 and asked that the matter be set at the beginning of the calendar if on January 16, 2002.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Commissioner McInerney. Then, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 2-2-1 (Commissioner Cullum & Commissioner El Qadag dissented; Commissioner McInerney recused) to reschedule the matter to January 30, 2002. Three votes being necessary to reschedule a case, the motion failed and the case resumed its place on the night’s agenda. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders absent, Commissioner McInerney recused/absent) to reschedule the matter to January 9, 2002, and for it to be placed right after the West Cork Hotel case on the agenda.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, said that if there is service to the public at the bottom level then no conditional use authorization.