Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders (who arrived at 6:00 p.m.), 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.

SPEAKER: President Chin apologized to the audience for the cancellation of the meeting scheduled for September 19, 2001 and explained parking program for Commissioners, and directed staff to prepare a letter to the Board of Supervisors urging them to retain the money proposed for televising Board meetings for the general fund for use next year when the City budget will be drastically affected by the slowdown of the economy.

ITEM A: 2390- 39^th Avenue. Letter from Paul Sacamano, Urban Forester, Dept. of Public Works, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 01-121, Luo vs. DPW, heard August 29, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner El Qadah absent) to OVERRULE the denial and GRANT the subject permit on CONDITION that the replacement trees be listed on the "Street Tree Planting Guide" which is issued by the Urban Forestry Division of the Department of Public Works.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-2-1 (President Chin and Commissioner El Qadah dissented, Commissioner McInerney absent) to DENY the request for rehearing. Four votes being necessary to grant a rehearing, the motion PASSED, and the rehearing request was DENIED.

SPEAKERS: 1. Paul Sacamano, Urban Forester, Dept. of Public Works, requested that the Board grant a rehearing because his staff was otherwise committed and couldn’t be present at the hearing and a rehearing would allow them to make their case in support of their denial of the permit for tree replacement, since the existing tree has not done any significant damage to the sewer or sidewalk and what little it has done can be easily repaired. His department has denied this application twice, he said. 2. Fred Martinez, representive of the appellant responded by explaining the procedural history of the application.

ITEM B: 751-755 Arguello Boulevard. Letter from Drexel Bradshaw, attorney for Jennifer Smith & Nicole Benton, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/02/22/2409. Permit Holder: A. Desta. PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2001. FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.

ACTION: This matter was CONTINUED to November 7, 2001 for further consideration.

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to October 10, 2001 prior to consideration.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 to RESCHEDULE the matter to November 7, 2001 with no further rescheduling.

SPEAKERS: 1. Nicola Zunic, spoke for the appellant and asked the Board to continue this hearing because their attorney has dropped the case and they are seeking new counsel. 2. Joyce Book, permit holder, objected to a continuation since her project has been delayed for so long already. Milena Benassini, speaking for the appellant, said that there is a new attorney but he couldn’t attend this hearing. Mrs. Book said that if it is continued then November 7, 2001 is her choice for a new hearing date.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney absent) to OVERRULE the denial, and GRANT the variance with the following CONDITIONS: that a Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) be recorded on the subject property that limits the use and sale of the subject property by/to teachers; that redwood siding be used; and that a fire-rated roof be used so as to eliminate the side parapet requirements.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that the case had been continued for research of the Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) attached to the variance decision and that the issue had been the design of the proposed house at the rear. He said he couldn’t find any NSRs but described the staff notes in the file. He couldn’t explain why there is no NSR in the file. 2. Steven Currier, for the ZA, said he had gone through the file and there were no NSR’s in it nor in the title report. The plans were in the file but no documentation. He said the neighborhood association involved there no longer exists. Public Comment for the ZA: 3. Aris Stratakis for the ZA a next door neighbor said she is in agreement with the City and that it appears the City dropped the ball in not getting an NSR recorded at the proper time. She asked the Board to deny this variance application because the appellant has no consideration for the neighbors. 4. Peter Mistho, for the appellant said he had no plans to move and he was present in 1990 and had fought to have any new development in the rear of the property. He thought a deed restriction would be recorded to assure this. Lack of NSR enough basis for decision in favor of ZA. And there is substantial neighborhood opposition to the application. There was no public comment for appellant.

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to December 5, 2001 prior to hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to OVERRULE the subject determination with CONDITIONS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained why he felt a new 311 Notice was required in this case with original plan for the family home becoming a one-family home, both with the same envelope but the planner reviewing plans missed the need for a variance for the front setback problem. 2. David Cincotta, attorney for the appellant, described his agreement with Mr. Tam, the neighbor of Mr. Chan, the appellant. He said there has been no change in the plans that could trigger a new Section 311 notice requirement. He said the construction conforms to the plans. He noted that all the interested parties are here present providing the hearing Mr. Badiner sought and he described the ameliorating design features his client provided. Public Comment for Zoning Administrator:

3. Charlotte Prozan, a neighbor, said the appellant is disingenuous when he said he was building for his family and now the house is on the market for $2.2 million, which shocks her. The original notice and plans were confusing and so no one requested a Discretionary Review because they didn’t understand how large the house would be; that it would be a monster house with 13 rooms and 4½ bathrooms and that it didn’t meet the Residential Design Guidelines. 4. Arnold Wasserman said he agrees with former speaker. He said the bulk of the house and the lack of respect for the character of the neighborhood disturbed him most. 5. Lynda Sullivan said she has lived on the block for five years and the new house stands out like a sore thumb. She feels the notice was misleading and inaccurate. 6. Phillip Tam, a neighbor, said the appellant has agreed to move a light well so it won’t block his window, and he now withdraws his objections to the project but he still supports the need for a new notice. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted to UPHOLD the subject permit on CONDITION that the drainage pipe connect to the sewer system.

SPEAKERS: 1. Mark Piper, son of the appellant, said he has no problem with the project but is very concerned with the stability of the hillside which has been subject to landslides over the years. He hasn’t been able to get any action from the many City departments he has complained to and no one seems to be responsible for the fire road in back. 2. Christopher Markovich, the permit holder said his retaining wall will be four or five feet in height. Andre Rothblatt, architect for the permit, described the wall. 3. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said the wall must be designed by a licensed structural engineer and is to prevent sliding. He said that clearly there are slide problems here, and must drain into the sewer system. NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 2-3 (Vice President Saunders, Commissioners Cullum and El Qadah dissented) to REVOKE the subject permit. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the motion FAILED, and the subject permit was UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Laurence Kornfield said that there are at least four permits for this project and all are vague. He described which is considered a demolition under the Building Code, unless the whole building is removed.

2. Frank Duarte, the appellant, described the chronology of his efforts to follow the permits approved for the project and said in his view this is a demolition and should have a demolition permit. He said it should also provide a 45% rear yard as required by Sec. 134 pf the Planning Code for all residential buildings, especially since it is built so close to his property. There is no rear setback at all. 3. James Cline, co-permit holder and architect, responded by saying that this is not a demolition since it preserves one wall as part of the renovated building. The old building has not been completely razed and the project up to Code with the gable at 20’6" in height and the building is not a residence and therefore doesn’t require a 45% of lot depth rear yard nor or rear yard variance as a building grandfathered in, built before rear yard standards were enacted. It was built in 1906 as shown on the original permit. NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE APPELLANT. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PERMIT HOLDERS: 4. Dana Smoky said she has known the permit holders for a long time and they are a welcome addition to the neighborhood since they are restoring the old carriage house in an area where there was a drive-by shooting recently. She hopes the restoration is completed as soon as possible. 5. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that Section 188 of the Planning Code prohibits expansion of non-conforming use or structure. He felt the building has been razed and building a new one would require compliance with all the Code requirements including rear-yard standards unless a variance is sought and granted. Rebuilding of an NCU as it was is only permitted if the building has been destroyed by an Act of God which is not the case here, and he wasn’t clear that a variance could be approved if filed.