Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Commissioners Carole Cullum, Allam El Qadah, and John McInerney.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (SBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary.

ABSENT: Vice President Sabrina Saunders.

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

SPEAKERS: None.

SPEAKERS: None.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING:

ITEM A: 710 - 10^th Avenue. Letter from John M. Sanger, attorney for Joan Coleman Spaargaren, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-215 heard on February 7, 2001. After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to overrule the unlawful demolition determination. Four votes are needed to overrule a department and the determination was UPHELD.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0 to CONTINUE the matter to May 9, 2001 for a full Board.

SPEAKER: John Sanger, attorney for appellant asked that this request for rehearing be put off until there is a full Board in attendance.

ADOPTION OF FINDINGS:

ITEM B: 1247 Florida Street. Appeal No. V00-130, heard October 4, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner El Qadah absent) to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator and GRANT the front setback variance to allow a new porch and stairs to extend further into the front setback than the existing porch. The Board directed the appellant to submit findings for adoption at a later date.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to ADOPT the findings submitted by the appellant.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to OVERRULE the department with the CONDITION that the penalty be reduced to two times the regular fee of $215.80 for a total of $431.60.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to OVERRULE the department with the CONDITION that the penalty be reduced to two times the regular fee of $297.05 for a total of $594.10.

SPEAKER: Rafafel Torres-Gil (SBI, DBI) said that the penalty matters could be handled expeditiously.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 to CONTINUE the matter to May 9, 2001 at the request of the appellant.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with the CONDITION that the permit holder agrees to complete the job using the plans drawn by Emmanuel Pun dated February 16, 2001.

SPEAKERS: Darrell Spencer, appellant, introduced John Ganaden, an engineer, to explain the drainage problem. 2. John Ganaden asked the Board to order an emergency inspection of the subject property to see the violations causing the drainage problem. He said he was a civil engineer in the Philippines. 3. Edward Lam, permit holder introduced Emmanuel Pun, his engineer to explain the steps his client was taking to end the drainage problem. 4. Rafael Torres-Gil (SBI, DBI) said he had reviewed the plans of the permit holder and that the steps he has taken are very sophisticated and appear to be an appropriate solution to the drainage problem.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with findings that were read into the record by Commissioner Cullum.

SPEAKERS: 1. Judy West, appellant said she was not asking for the property to be condemned and bought by the City but only that the owner consider swapping the lot for another that meets his needs to allow use of the lot for a bicycle way or a MUNI rail corridor. She asked that the matter be put over to allow time for a review by MUNI. She said there is no lawsuit pending in this case. 2. Judith Boyajian (DCA) said that the site was in private ownership and the Board could not disapprove the permit because it was too late to take for open space. 3. Dan Sullivan, representative for the permit holders, said his clients oppose any continuance of the hearing and that the proposed building was necessary for their business and that his client is a public spirited citizen but he has his business to take care of. Public Comment for Appellant: 4. Leah Shahum from the bicycle coalition explained the purpose of the grant given to the appellant for studying the issues and explained how many bicycle riding commuters there are in the City. There was no Public Comment for permit holders.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by President Chin to uphold the permit with no conditions, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissenting). Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney to rescind the previous vote and to reconsider the matter and to grant the permit with three CONDITIONS: the railing to be open and the deck to be fire resistant, and no barbecuing to be allowed on the deck, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the permit with the three CONDITIONS above.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jack Scott for the appellant, showed photos to demonstrate the closeness of the two buildings and how the proposed roof deck would create a tunnel effect between them. 2. Fred Kollerbohm, an engineer, representing the permit holder described the long process his client had gone through with Planning and Building Inspection to obtain a permit for the code-complying deck. He said the issue is the railing for the deck. 3. Lawrence Badiner (ZA) explained the non-conforming structure limits for roof decks and the regulations for railings and firewalls under the Planning Code. 4. Rafael Torres-Gil (SBI, DBI) explained the Building Code regulations for decks and railings. There was no public comment for either side.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to CONTINUE the matter to March 21, 2001 at the request of the parties.

SPEAKERS: 1. Robert McCarthy, attorney for the appellants requested that the Board continue these matters to April 11, 2001 because of the lack of Section 311 Notification to neighbors of the project prior to the issuance of the permit. He was willing to have the matter passed so parties could try to settle the appeals in the corridor. 2. Steven Atkinson, attorney for the permit holders said he too wanted a continuance so that all five members of the Board could be present and that he was willing to have the matters passed in order for the parties to try to settle in the corridor, though he preferred to be heard tonight. Parties did not reach a settlement in corridor. 3. Timothy Moppin, attorney for appellant Alan Kuhn agreed to the continuance of the appeals to March 21, 2001.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit.

SPEAKERS: Russell Savage, appellant, said he was protesting just the vertical addition and not the horizontal addition. He said the vertical addition will block sunlight and magnificent views from his four-unit building next door and it will be a disaster for him. He disagreed with Jeremy Paul’s characterization of the setbacks as a concession to the neighbors. 2. Jeremy Paul, representing the permit holder, said the addition will be set back three feet from the appellant’s property line and that the appellant’s building is much larger than his client’s. There was no public comment for either side.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 to CLOSE the public hearing and CONTINUE the matter to March 21, 2001.

SPEAKERS: 1. Victor Young, an appellant speaking for all the appellants explained that there had been no notice of the proposed project to him and the other neighbors and that it is not clear to them from the plans what the project is exactly and they wanted the Planning Commission to look at the project. He said the project is an accident waiting to happen because of its affect on traffic flow, especially to the vans serving the elderly at the Lady Shaw building next door. 2. Bunny Chin, another appellant, said that the project would create traffic hazards for the elderly in the neighborhood and she asked how would fire trucks be able to serve the buildings next door the subject site. 3. Jeremy Paul, representing the permit holder, clarified the parking program for the project and acknowledged the effect on traffic is the major concern of the appellants and he will pursue solutions in consultation with Department of Public Works. He said this site is ripe for new housing and he explained further how the parking spaces would be situated along Salmon Alley. Public Comment for appellants: 4. Jeff Wong said that the appellants would egress from Mason Street. 5. No Public Comment for permit holder.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator.

SPEAKERS: The appellant did not appear and there was no testimony or public comment.

___________________________________

___________________________________