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); Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector (SBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

SPEAKERS: None.

SPEAKERS: 1. Commissioner McInerney asked about the status of a proposed ballot measure sent to the Board for comment. 2. Judith Boyajian, DCA, said the proposal had been tabled as far as the November ballot is concerned. 3. President Chin said the letter would be reconsidered once the proposal is again being considered by the Board of Supervisors.

ITEM B: 3426-3428 Balboa Street. Letter from Philip Horne, attorney for Ahmed Riad, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2001/04/04/6051.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, said an agreement has been reached with the appellant but he wants the Board to retain jurisdiction until the appellant has proven to be a good neighbor. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZA: 2. Jeremy Paul, a concerned neighbor, said there has been positive change in the situation but it is necessary for the City to pay attention especially the multiple curb cuts that take up valuable curb parking for the public.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the permit with the CONDITIONS as stipulated by the principals, and with the following additional CONDITIONS: that steam-cleaning be provided to 55 & 67 Salmon Street, and that a contact for complaints and information (name, telephone, pager, and address of the contractor) be given to all the appellants and Lady Shaw Senior Center.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holder, presented his construction management plan as requested by the Lady Shaw Senior Center. 2. Alice Barley, attorney for Lady Shaw Senior Center, said she received the plan at 5:00 p.m. and she asked that additional conditions be added to the permit holder’’ proposed construction plan, that a contact person be named for her client to contact is there are any problems during construction, and that this was acceptable to the permit holders. 3. Cynthia Lee, agent for the appellants, said that her group has had no time to review the proposed construction management plan prior to the meet in and that there are four items of concern to her group; that there be minimal disruption to Salmon Street especially the turning traffic area, that a liaison be named so they have someone to call if there are problems for any of the neighbors, and that 55 and 67 Salmon get the same steam cleaning after construction as was promised to 65 Salmon. She said her group had asked Planning about a DR request in October 2000, but had never received an answer to their request although their check for the DR fee had been cashed. 4. Larry Badiner, ZA, said a note in the file says the DR request had been withdrawn and he was told the neighbors were satisfied. He said the DR issue must be addressed and that he will check into it and follow up. 5. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holder, said he will provide contact information and will steam clean the mentioned buildings. 6. Alice Barkley, attorney for Lady Shaw Senior Center, said only the Board of Supervisors can grant access to the City’s easement over City property as far as the gate is concerned. NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

SPEAKERS: 1. John Little, owner and permit holder, said that there is no kitchen in the lower unit which he occasionally sleeps in when he is working in the City. The stairs will connect lower rooms with unit above, meeting the zoning of the property. 2. William Weisberg, attorney for appellants, said that this matter should be sent back to the Planning Commission for a DR hearing since the project would result in the loss of a dwelling unit since the building will go from three to two units and will eliminate his clients’ unit. This is not just the installation of a stairway. 3. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, said that the lower rooms are for storage use only and are not habitable as set forth in the NSR recorded on the land records. 4. John Riccio, attorney for the permit holder, said that the core issue is the number of dwelling units on the property and that it has always been a two-unit building as is stated on the permit application and the plans by Abraham Zavala were approved, and this a landlord-tenant matter and his client must care for his son who is paralyzed and needs the space for when he stays in the City. 5. Abraham Zavala, engineer for the permit holder, explained his understanding of the use of the building. 6. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the NSR was necessary for the approval of the permit in the 1970’s and that the lower level rooms are for storage use only and do not constitute a separate dwelling unit since there is no kitchen, a requirement for a dwelling unit under the Planning Code, though they could be deemed accessory to the unit above. The present use appears to violate the NSR and the Code. The Commission policy regarding mergers of legal units, and not removal of illegal units. 7. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, explained the permit history of the building, and said the lower level has always been for storage use only, and there is no bathroom as well as no kitchen.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to August 22, 2001, with the public hearing CLOSED.

SPEAKERS: 1. Mary Butler, appellant, said the primary issue for her is that the project is built to the property line and no firewall is being installed which she feels creates a hazard. 2. Jerry Klein, agent for the permit holder, said this would not be a roof deck but is an extension at the rear. The permit is to legalize construction and to meet the Codes. He said the project has been pulled back three feet from the property line so that no fire wall is required, and the deck stepped back to reduce the impact on the neighbors, and the project is to Code, correcting all violations. The penalty has been paid for the work done without a permit and was reduced to two times the regular fee because the original $5,000.00 penalty was deemed draconian. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that proper Section 311 notice was sent out and that no requests for DR were received, although the planner reviewing the plans requested a setback to mitigate the impact on the appellant, and the computer was proper is an accessory use with no outside employees. No non-residential improvements can be approved in this residential zoning district. 4. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, gave the permit history of the building and explained the Notice of Violation that was issued in September 2000. He said that all the work would be inspected and required to be safe before the project is signed off. He said the chief inspector has seen the plans and said it is a habitable room which requires light and ventilation if it is a bedroom, which the district inspector will determine. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: 5. Mati Bates of 7 Olmstead Street said she had submitted a letter with a sketch pointing out how she feels the project would impact her addition. She feels the new wall lacks integrity with the addition on top built without permits. 6. Abraham Zavala, engineer for the appellant, said that he is concerned about privacy and safety. NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the suspension, and GRANT the subject permit with the following CONDITIONS: that the window in the media room be removed, that the roof deck be eliminated, that the second floor be setback 3’6", and that white reflective paint be used on the westerly wall of the subject property.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the reason for the suspension of the permit, the lack of proper Section 311 notice to the neighbors of this project; the renovation of an historical Victorian, though not a designated landmark. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for the appellant, said he had agreement from concerned neighbors for revisions to the plans that his client was willing to make which will preserve the Victorian character of the building. 3. Andrew Zacks, attorney for the appellant, said that the permit has vested under California law and that the Permit Streamlining Act also required the approval of the permit and the lifting of the suspension based on the time that has elapsed since the application was filed and the requirement that once the application has been deemed complete and accepted the City has one year to review and there it is considered approved by operation of law. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZA: 4. Katherine Philippakis, attorney for the abutting neighbor, said the issue remains the failure to give proper Section 311 notice that would have given neighbors a chance to request DR review by the Planning Commission. She said she did contact the Planning Department but was told that modifications to the plans would be required by staff to meet the concerns of the neighbors regarding the blockage of light and air and privacy that will be lost due to the project, so no DR was required. But the final plans are not what the neighbors agreed to. Asked that the plans be sent back to the Commission for further review and modification. 5. Ian Berke, Vice President of the Pacific Heights Residents’ Association, said he supports the stop work order because the project is really a new three-story building along the East property line, and the addition is too large while the façade should be preserved. The neighbors feel cheated because nothing informed them that this is a Jimmy Jen project. He agreed to a notch to protect neighbors. 6. Jon Yolles said he was most concerned with the loss of light and air. He is the client of Ms. Philippakis. The plans given to the neighbors do not match the earlier plans and the modifications the appellant said would be done were not done. But he does not want the project delayed just the small changes made: the three-foot notch on the west side. 7. Jorge Torres, said that he was never notified. He wants removal of deck and window on second floor and a six-foot setback at the front of the building. NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT.

SPEAKERS: 1. Marilyn Amini, appellant, said that a successful relocation of the electrical connection to the permit holder’s house may have been done but it took 70 days to do the work and it caused her to fear failure to do the relocation during that period. Another hurdle under PG&E’s green book Section 5.2 is that PG&E was not consulted. She questioned the issuance of the 1979 permit for the permit holder’s house expansion and asked the Board to initiate a thorough investigation of that matter and she feels was not properly done then. She said the records are not to be found and the process was not improper for their rear addition. Even the inspector said it was not a lawful addition. 2. Bethany Chaney, co-permit holder, said they have done what PG&E wanted and the plans she submitted will straighten out all the problems remaining. 3. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, said there has been a final inspection for the electrical work and that wires no longer cross the appellant’s property. The 1979 work was approved and signed off at that time and his review shows the process was correct. 4. Bridget Wiley, co-permit holder, said there was now full compliance with PG&E’s requirements. NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to UPHOLD the permit with the following CONDITIONS: that the appellant be allowed to stay in the unit during construction, that the appellant be given at least 48 hours notice prior to any work, and that the work be performed during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Ma, representing the appellant, said she accepted President Chin’s apology for his remarks at the last meeting. 2. Suzanne Yee, appellant, said that the landlord now said she could remain in the unit while the work was done. 3. Ken Vierra, attorney for the permit holder, said his client has no objection to the appellant remaining in her apartment while the work goes on. He said he would stipulate to the condition and the work would be done between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday if the permit is reinstated. 4. He added that the landlord would give the appellant 24 hours notice of when the work would commence. He said the job itself would probably take five days to do and the completion of the permit process will take five or six weeks and that his client will give 48 hours written notice to the appellant before work begins on the apartment. NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject variance with the following CONDITIONS: that Finding No. 1 in the variance decision be amended with language that indicates the subject property is burdened by easements on the southern and western boundaries, that plans be resubmitted to reflect that the appellant’s building is 53.5’ long and not 55’ long, and that the second floor of the subject building remain with a 10’ setback from the appellant’s property.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained why the variance had been granted and that the alleged encroachments onto the appellant’s property are not relevant to the variance, although he knew of the encroachment at the time of his decision. He added that retaining walls and underpinning are covered by the Building Code and the Civil Code. 2. Maureen Crowe, appellant, said her house is perpendicular to the subject property and that the variance holder’s lot is not rectangular as shown on the plans, and the proposed building is 53.5’ long and not 55’ as shown, and the plans need to be corrected, and they should show accurately the adjacent buildings which are not shown now. 3. David Cincotta, attorney for the variance holder, said that the appellant is correct and the construction plans will be revised to show correct dimensions. These facts make the site even more extraordinary under Requirement No. 1. He added that the underpinning will be done in consultation with the appellant and if she does not agree to it his client will do the engineering entirely on her property. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: 4. Jerry Klein said he had helped the appellant but is not her agent. He explained his understanding of Section 832 of the Civil Code. He said he is not an attorney but has many years experience with these problems. 5. David Lee of 372 Vallejo said that he owned the property adjacent to the subject property and he objects to the granting of this variance and feels that Requirement 4 is not met and that the variance decision is inconsistent as to design and the easement was ignored. He has an easement too, for right of way. His greatest concerns are the stairway and the underpinning. He has no confidence it will be done right. 6. Suzanne Dulkinys, variance holder, said she will take responsibility for any damage to neighbors’ properties done by her construction.