Meeting Information

SPEAKERS: None.

SPEAKERS: None.

ITEM A: 1021 Francisco Street. Letter from John Loughran, co-appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No.

01-118, heard August 22, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject permit issued to Lisa Giannone.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Ginny Loughran, co-appellant and wife of the appellant, requested that the Board grant a rehearing because they are losing their privacy with the permit holder’s project and there is a 3’, 3" discrepancy in the plans on the proposed monster home project. Jack Scott speaking for the permit holders said it is practically impossible for the neighbors next door to see the affected portion of the house. He explained that the Certificate of Final Completion is issued for energy usage purposes and is not relevant here and the document says this is for one-family use only and that the Assessor’s record may be inaccurate.

ITEM B: 1775 -1777 Yosemite & 1760 Armstrong Avenues. Letter from Kevin Greenquist, attorney for Permit Holder Les Silverman, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 01-109/110/111/112, Wojak et al. vs. DBI, heard September 12, 2001. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 1-4 (Vice President Saunders, Commissioners Cullum, McInerney & El Qadah dissented) to CONTINUE the matters to October 31, 2001, with the public hearing CLOSED. Three votes being necessary to continue a case, the motion FAILED. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to REVOKE all four permits.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner McInerney dissented) to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Kevin Greenquist, attorney for permit holder, said that the new evidence to be submitted if a rehearing is granted is the precise estimate from the contractor for the work necessary on the building to bring it up to Code for residential use and that the estimate was not available at the time of the hearing. He said his client has Hobson’s choice since the permits necessary to abate the Fire Code violations is denied by the Board making him liable for the on-going violations which he can’t correct without the permits. Steve Collier representing the appellant urged the Board to deny the rehearing for the reason the so-called new evidence was available at the hearing held on September 12th are the documents is listed September 13th. He said that Charles Silverman, one of the owners of the property, had said that the Fire Department wasn’t enforcing because of the Board’s denial of the permits. He reminded the Board that President Chin’s suggestion at the hearing that the appeal be continued to October 3st (or 31st) ???? was objected to by the permit holder’s attorney, Mr. Fried, who objected and asked for a ruling that might end this. Mr. Fried knew he had the estimate and if had agreed to a continuous could have presented it to the Board before it acted on the appeal.

ITEM C: 3615 - 20^th Street. Letter from Jeremy Paul, agent for Project Sponsor Nina Hatvany, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 01-146, Hatvany vs. ZA, heard September 12, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s request on CONDITION that the project sponsor obtain a "Certificate of Appropriateness" from the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and Conditional Use (CU) authorization from the Planning Commission if required to do so by the Zoning Administrator.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul requested a rehearing to clarify the Board’s decision which was made after the protest appeal was withdrawn by the protestor. He said the client’s attorney couldn’t be present but was needed to analyze the legal aspects of the matter. He reminded the Board that there were two appeals in this case and the withdrawal of the first one put the second appeal in a different light which he is unable to explain since is not an attorney. His client is pursuing a Certificate of Appropriateness as required by the Board. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that he has no objection to a rehearing and that he would respond in writing to a request in writing on the issue of whether the permit holder is required to obtain conditional use authorization for the project; such a determination may be appealed to the Board.

ITEM D: 957-959 Alabama Street. Letter from Javier Solorzano, agent for variance applicant Lourdes Sainez, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Variance Decision No. 2001.0516V.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Cullum and McInerney dissented) to GRANT the request for jurisdiction. Four votes being necessary to take jurisdiction over any departmental action, the motion FAILED, and jurisdiction was DENIED.

SPEAKERS: Javier Solorzano speaking for the variance applicant requesting a new ten-day appeal period, said that she had been in Mexico for two months and didn’t see the decision until her return to the City. He asked the Board to read the last paragraph of the ZA’s finding No. 2. He said he was delayed in making this request because he had tried to have the ZA reissue the decision with a new date to allow for an appeal. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the requester could have indicated at the variance hearing that the would be out of the country and he would have waited and issued the variance in enough time to allow for a timely appeal by her, but she didn’t indicate her need for a later issuance or she could have indicated another person to send it to who could act in her behalf and meet the ten-day appeal period, but she didn’t do that either. He said he expected that a property owner would leave someone in charge during a lengthy trip and she is a substantial property owner.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to ADOPT the subject settlement and vacate and set aside its decision of May 9, 2001 on condition that a) R.A.M. Development withdraw its appeal of the subject Notice of Violation; b) that the Zoning Administrator withdraws his Notice of Violation of the Planning Code; c) and that the City Attorney and Zoning Administrator dismiss their petition for writ of mandate.

SPEAKERS: Judith Boyajian reported that Peter Keith the Deputy City Attorney who was handling this case had agreed to the proposed settlement and would withdraw his action once the Board rescinded its decision at the Zoning Administrator withdrew his Notice of Decision. John Sanger representing the appellant said his client concurs with the settlement. No Public Comments.

ACTION: This matter was WITHDRAWN orally by the appellant, with a private settlement read into the record by the appellant, his wife, and the permit holder’s attorney.

SPEAKERS: Zheng Hai Ping, appellant, reminded the Board of the report by the Chief Building Inspector of the condition of the unit. Daniel Bornstein, attorney for the permit holder, reminded the Board why the matter has been continued, to allow time for parties to reach agreement, but the appellant is intransigent and he asks the Board to uphold the permit. He said his client had offered the appellant $5,000 to move. The appellant, after negotiations with the permit holder, accepted an offer and agreed to withdraw his appeal in return for a sixty-day delay (December 6) in moving out and payment to him of $5,000. Mrs. Ping clarified that the amount agreed to is $7,000 and a waiver of rent until December 6th. No public comment for either side.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to January 9, 2002, with the public hearing CLOSED.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, said there is no guarantee that the appellant will be permitted maximum density and that there was no hardship that could justify granting variance. He said this lot is deeper and longer than the lots nearby. The creation of a small lot would be out of character with the neighborhood and the appellant has a variety of options to develop without a variance. David Levy, attorney for the appellant, said his client had negotiated with the neighbors before the hearing in August. All the lots on the block have houses in their rear yards except the appellant’s. He said the granting of the variance would benefit the City by allowing construction of a house during a severe housing shortage. It would replace a portion of the existing long bleak wall which would improve the neighborhood. He said the nineteen conditions agreed to by his client would ameliorate the effect of the project which would not be a determent to the neighborhood. Graham Schneider, appellant, said the proposal is for a one-family house only while seven units are allowed. He said the front setback is huge and provides open space. Public Comment for Zoning Administrator: John Johnson of 730 Church Street, said the appellant has made no concessions on the major issues and the proposed house will interfere with neighbors’ privacy and block their sunlight since it will be only fifteen feet away from them. John Baumgartner said he has been involved since the beginning and that the so-called concessions were only things required by the Code and what they had requested had been rejected by the appellant. He said appellant knew of opposition to such development when he purchased as part of required disclosure by seller. Tomas Lathan for the ZA said the ZA is correct and these five requirements have not been met in this case. He lives at 240 Cumberland in apartment 106. Linette Hayes has a studio and the proposed project would disturb her and many trees would be lost. She will have to move. Public Comment for the Appellant: Steve Hall of the Friends of Noe Valley asked if the Commission had made a site visit so they can see that light and air arguments are bogus and the neighborhood is already dense and with a fifteen-foot setback the proposed house would be acceptable and the neighbor’s views improved.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD both permits with the CONDITIONS as stipulated to by the parties.

SPEAKERS: No appearances made.

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to the Indefinite Calendar or "Call of the Chair" due to failure to perfect the appeal by the Appellant.

(9)APPEAL NO. 01-139

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE the matter to November 7, 2001, with no further rescheduling allowed.

SPEAKERS: Nina Kitova, permit holder, strongly objected to a continuance of this appeal because of the hardship it will be for her to delay a decision. She said she is in great financial difficulties. Scott Bonagofsky, attorney for the appellants agreed to continue the appeal to November 7, 2001 so that it could be heard by all five Commissioners. (Vice President Saunders had left the meeting to meet a family emergency).

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to November 7, 2001.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, requested the hearing be rescheduled so all five Commissioners can be present. Jodi Daprano, appellant, agreed to a continuance to November 7, 2001.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented and Vice President Saunders absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to November 7, 2001, with no further rescheduling allowed.

SPEAKERS: Alan Lerch, appellant requested his appeal be continued to November 7, 2001 so that it could be heard by all five Commissioners. Scott Emblidge, attorney for permit holder objected to a continuance and said he wanted to go forward with the hearing even though only four Commissioners would be present. so that his client might be able to begin construction this year before the rainy season.