Meeting Information

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

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

ABSENT: Commissioner Carole Cullum.

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

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

SPEAKERS: None.

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD:

ITEM A: 378 Cumberland Street. Letter from Fernando Evangelho, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9919077 issued to Richard Beard and Michael Booth for demolition of a single-family residence.

Date issued April 26, 2000

Last day to appeal May 11, 2000

Request for jurisdiction May 25, 2000

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained the notice requirements for the subject project and how a second appeal period was allowed. He said that no demolition had occurred yet. 2. Fernando Evangelho, requestor, urged the Board to allow him to file a late appeal because of his fear that the demolition would damage his property and he wanted a guarantee that it would not. He said he wants his property videotaped before the demolition. He said he was out of the country when the permit was issued. 3. Richard Beard, co-permit holder and project architect, said that the property was posted when the permit was issued on April 26, 2000 and showed a photo of the poster on the building. He urged the Board to not allow a late filing which he said would only be a stalling tactic. He assured the Board he would take all regular steps to not damage his neighbor’s property since his credibility as an architect in the community depended on it. He said this permit was the last hurdle as the site permit was issued and not appealed. He intends to negotiate the issues raised with his neighbor and an appeal now would be an abuse of the process.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to GRANT the permit with the CONDITION stipulated in the principals’ agreement.

SPEAKERS: 1. The Executive Secretary reported that the parties had reached an agreement and that the appellant and his attorney were on their way to New York to be on national television but had asked that the Board go ahead and uphold the permit with their agreement with the permit holder for a temporary fence attached as conditions of approval. The permit holder was present but did not speak.

(5) CONSENT ITEMS: With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal.

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-070

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to REDUCE the penalty to three (3) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: 1. Kans Yee, son of the appellant, said that many houses in the City have similar in-law apartments and yet his father was reported and must remove his. He said that the unit has not been rented in ten years and that his father is getting old. The unit was added 30 years ago and his dad, injured in an auto accident in December, wants to make it legal space. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said he had little to add, that the permit is for the removal of an illegal basement kitchen which converts the building back to its lawful two-family use. He explained that creation of a third unit made the building an apartment house and triggered many additional requirements.

(B) APPEAL NO. 00-072

ACTION: This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant at the hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the top 1 foot of the 6 foot fence be lattice, and on further CONDITION that the top 1 foot of the guard rail also be lattice.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sawyer Terrell, appellant, asked that a portion of the proposed deck be removed so that it would not be so close to his house, and that the fence should remain at six feet. 2. Terrance Marseille, owner of the property at 1824 Allen Street, showed four photos of the subject rear yard and explained the history of its development. He fears the work on the project will result in the creation of an illegal unit.

3. William Heijn, architect for the permit holder, showed photos of the deck and fence and explained that decks three feet or less above grade are permitted in rear yards under the Planning Code and fences six feet or less in height are permitted without permits under the Building Code. He said the plan is to landscape the yard; the railing on the deck must be 42 inches in height under the Building Code. No Public Comment for Either Side. 4. Jacques Janot, permit holder, in rebuttal described how the dirt was added to the yard and how the retaining wall keeps it in the yard. 5. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained Planning Code provisions regarding decks and fences in rear yards.

6. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, in answer to a Board question said that lattice work for the top foot of a six foot high fence was permitted by the Building Code and was not an issue.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the subject wall be relocated to the original location as on the sub-division map, and on further CONDITION that all bathrooms, sinks and kitchens built in the storage area be removed.

SPEAKERS: 1. Christopher Visher, attorney for and husband of appellant, said he and his wife live in the upper of the two condos and the permit holder in the lower one, where he had created a rental unit without permission of the condo association. The matter had been sent by the Building Inspection Commission to the City Attorney and the permit holder had stipulated to a preliminary injunction requiring removal of the unit. He said the plans did not comply with the stipulated injunction. He said the permit holder had not discussed the plans with his wife and him and that they failed to meet the CC and R’s. He described the problems with tenants over the years and how the parking scheme had been obstructed for the tandem space. 2. George Cresson, agent for permit holder, said that the court had said the permit holder must go back to the original use or he must legalize the existing use. He admitted that the wall had to be moved to allow the tandem parking space. He said the permit holder has a right to the common areas under an agreement with the appellant, though she was not honoring it, and the CC & R’s do allow the lower unit to have habitable space in its lower portion if the Codes permit it. No Public Comment for Either Side. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that the plans had been signed, stamped and approved but he noted that they failed to relocate the wall which is a violation of the injunction. 4. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, said that the stairway encroachment on the parking space may be a problem, and that Planning prefers that stairs be within the storage area instead of in the garage. He said that the department’s "Room-Down Matrix" would allow the stairs to lessen the likelihood of the creation of an illegal unit in the basement, and would permit a half-bath too. 5. Laurence Kornfield said that nothing in the Building Code prohibits the stairs.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s denial of the variance.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained that the variance was denied because of the lack of hardship and disruption of the lot pattern on the block. The proposed new lot would be less than the 1750sf necessary under the Code. 2. Van Ly, architect for appellant, said that the lot is 170 feet long and was originally three lots that were merged. Her client wants to split it into two, so that a house can be built on the new vacant one. She indicated that there was no opposition at the subdivision hearing and that no one would be disrupted by the project because of the lot slope. Public Comment for the Zoning Administrator: 3. Brian Bidinger, a neighbor, said he agrees with all the arguments opposing the variance, and explained the history of the lot and Mansell Street. 4. Manuel Gutierrez said it would be dangerous to build a house on the vacant proposed lot. 5. John Soe said he was the new owner of one of lots behind the subject lot and that he would lose a view of the bay if a house were built.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary