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, Planning Dept.; Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board; Substitute Official Court Reporter. Claudine Woeber.

SPEAKER: David Buzby of 1373 Third Street reported on additional facts concerning

Appeal No. 01-196 heard and decided on January 30, 2002. He described the history of the subject building before it was taken over by the Regents of U.C.

SPEAKERS: President Chin thanked the staff for contacting the Bar Association concerning referrals for citizens dealing with the appeal process.

ITEM A: 1432-1434 Kearny Street. Letter from Steve Atkinson, attorney for permit holders Nan & Nathan Roth, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 00-258/259/260/261, Cooper & Kirkham vs. DBI, PDA & Kuhn vs. DBI, PDA, decided August 22, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to revoke both permits. Appellants: Josef Cooper, Tracy Kirkham, and Alan Kuhn. Project: To demolish a garage, and construct a three-story two-family dwelling.

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the requestors.

.

ITEM B: 2252 Beach Street. Letter from John Sanger, attorney for appellants Clyde & Lisa Ikeda, requesting rehearing of Appeal 01-194, Ikeda vs. DBI, PCD, decided January 9, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1-1 (President Chin dissented, Commissioner McInerney recused) to overrule the denial by the Planning Commission and grant the subject permit per the revised plans submitted by the appellants’ attorney. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the motion failed, and the denial by the Planning Commission was upheld. § 14 Principal(s): Richard Garcia, and Robert & Dorothy Chan. Project: third floor addition, interior remodel, one-story addition with terrace above located at rear.

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the requestors.

ITEM C: 255 Chestnut Street. Letter from Andreas & Judith Katz, appellants, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 01-180, Katz vs. DBI, PDA, heard Jan. 9, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit. Permit Holder(s): Stuart Fuss. Project: replace and repair windows and roof, lower roof line, cut west side of cottage wall and footing to correct property line encroachment; remodel bathroom, electrical and plumbing.

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the requestors.

ITEM D: 1001 California Street #9R. Letter from Walter Wong, agent for Mille Meals Inc., Requestor/Permit Holder, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over a Zoning Administrator Request for Suspension regarding Building Permit Application No. 2001/10/21/1357 (remove counter top for bar; remove non-load bearing walls; remove plywood or raise floor in seating area; no structural work).

ACTION: This matter was rescheduled to March 20, 2002.

SPEAKERS: There were no speakers for either side.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the penalty to two times the regular fee, and that this penalty be based on a $5000 estimate for cost of work done.

SPEAKERS: Brian McDonald, appellant, explained that he thought that no permit was required for

the construction of a deck the size of his and so he began the work without a permit. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI for DBI, explained the Building Code requirements and described what the inspector had related to him about her observations.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the penalty to two times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: DBI consented.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the penalty to two times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: DBI consented.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the penalty to four times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: Ryan Caulfield, agent for appellant, explained how the work done was for PG&E and so he thought that no permit were necessary and when he found out permits were needed he then pulled them. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI for DBI, requested the penalties be upheld because the appellant is an experienced contractor who is presumed to know the requirements of the Codes.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the penalty to four times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: See Appeal No. 02-003

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the penalty to five times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: Janice Guan, speaking for her mother, said that the cost of the project was not as high as the Department calculated so that the permit fee should be reduced. She said the work was done without a permit because they thought adding a second kitchen is allowed. RafaelTorres-Gil, SBI for DBI, said he had spoken to the inspector and the violations have been corrected and the room is now legal.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the penalty to five times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: Antonio Franco, appellant, speaking through a translator said he thought no permits were necessary for the type of repairs he made. Mr. Sandoval, the translator, speaking for himself said that it was only a small stone structure used as a shed and it was changed to a concrete foundation but with the same footprint.

ACTION: This matter was rescheduled to March 6, 2002 prior to hearing.

SPEAKERS: There were no speakers.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reschedule the matter to April 3, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Roni Rotholtz, attorney for the appellant, asked that the appeal be rescheduled to a night with five members sitting and March 13 was acceptable. Sgt. William Coggan of the S.F.P.D. asked for a later date such as April 3.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to March 13, 2002.

SPEAKERS: John Sanger, attorney for the appellant requested a rescheduling for the hearing for lack of a five member Board. Timothy Tosta, attorney for the neighbor opposing the appellant agreed to a rescheduling to March 13. He asked for a show of hands of those in support of his clients and fifty hands went up in the audience.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to uphold the subject denial.

SPEAKERS: Paul Sacamano, urban forester for DPW explained the fine condition of the tree and why the species was suitable for the site. The appellant did not make an appearance.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to uphold the subject permit on condition that the blank wall be extended 3 feet following the slope of the staircase, which is to be executed in an attractive manner and in consultation with the Planning Dept.

SPEAKERS: Lillie Taylor, protestor said she has lived in the house next door to the subject house for 27 years and she explained how the new stairs will be a hazard for the children she takes care of and how she feels about the transient tenants who live in the permit holder’s house. Timothy Peterson, permit holder, explained how he had gotten all the required permits for the job and how he had spoken to his tenants after Ms. Taylor had reported their behavior to him.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE: Larry Badiner, ZA, said that the project required no Section 311 notification to the neighbor. Rafael Torres-Gil said that his Department had no objection to the project which was according to the Code. Jimmy Taylor, co-appellant, said he felt that only one set of stairs is needed for the house not two. It seems that the owner wants to turn the house into a complex, and there are seven cars there and the stairs present a hazard to their grandkids and foster kids.

ACTION: This matter was rescheduled to March 6, 2002 prior to hearing.

SPEAKERS: There were no speakers for either side.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to overrule the subject determination and not require Conditional Use (CU) authorization.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, said the issue is when did they stop serving food. If before 1987 then it is an automatic conditional use and can still operate without new permission from the Commission. If after 1987 then they need a new conditional use authorization. The Dwellers say food service stopped after 1987. Vincent deMartini, attorney for the appellant, said the documents related to the history of the use since the fire are vague and not clear. He said there was much testimony and letters that the food service stopped when the fire occurred in 1982 and no food service has been reinstated. His client purchased the building in 1982 and opened as bar only in 1983. All her employees attest to the fact no food has been served since 1982.

No public comment for either side.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reschedule the matter to April 3, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor, said that Reuben and Alter formerly represented the permit holder and she asked that Vice President McInerney be recused. Alice Barkley, attorney for the appellant said her side needs four votes to prevail and she objected to Mr. McInerney being recused.

Judith Boyajian in response to a Board question said a matter could be heard by the Board with an absent member reading all the material and listening to the tapes and then participating in the vote at a later meeting.

Larry Badiner, ZA, said that there is a common misunderstanding regarding stairwell penthouses among his staff and they are required to have Section 311 notification to the neighbors and his staff now gets it. Here the staff thought the over-the-counter permit was not a modification to the exterior but they were wrong. Alice Barkley for the appellants said that the project started with a hatch to the roof but the DBI required a stair penthouse and Planning said no Section 311 Notice was necessary and the neighbors had constructive notice since November and yet they took no action though they did get a Supervisor involved. Now penthouse is done and it would be wrong to make them remove it.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZA: Sue Hestor for the neighbors said there is no vested right here since work was done without a permit and this Board shouldn’t short circuit the Planning Code procedure and the staff didn’t follow the Code since you can’t expand the envelope without Section 311 Notice. Marian Anderson showed view from her back steps and from Corelli Street, and she said she did object to Mr. Baumann as soon as she saw the plans.

Judith Boyajian in response to a question from the Board said that neighbors are entitled to speak for up to three minutes even if they are clients of Sue Hestor under the Sunshine Ordinance.

Jeff Demma showed various perspectives from his home and said he had spoken to the owners and they finally admitted there would be a fifth floor and he feels there should have been Section 311 Notice so neighbors could have spoken up about the fifth floor. A Supervisor had suggested they retain legal counsel and they have. Jeff Marready said it is an illegal eyesore and the only option is to follow the determination of the ZA. To overrule would be a bad precedent. Keith Packer said he is Marready’s partner and he supports giving a new 311 Notice. He said they hadn’t sat on their rights but they didn’t know who to talk to after they saw it in November. Sue Braselmann says she has been duped or conned by the drawing that accompanied the Section 311 Notice since the house looks as if there is no fourth story.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANTS:

Rafael Torres-Gil explained how it is the State Building Code and the Uniform Building Codes that require the stair penthouse on four-story houses of a certain height for fire fighting reasons on a four-story building.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to uphold the denial of the Rear Yard, Parking and Exposure variances, and to overrule the denial of the Front Setback variance with findings to be prepared by the Zoning Administrator.

SPEAKERS: Brenda Cruz Keith, attorney for appellant withdrew her objections to all but the

parking issue and the front setback. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained that a three unit building is required to have three parking spaces and the variance is to make it possible to build the new garage in the front setback area. But there are no exceptional circumstances to base the variance on and he would do new findings if Board felt it should be granted. Maxwell Beaumont, architect, explained his plans and said they had had rigorous review at Planning. He said it was a hardship because his client was the only owner on the block without a garage.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject demolition permit on condition that action on this permit be suspended until a valid site permit is approved by the Planning Dept.

SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor attorney for the appellants said it is a very complicated case with a conditional use having been approved, the property then changing hands and the plans changing substantially and now a demolition permit being issued and here appealed and no proper notice given the neighbors. She said the demolition appeared to cut through a door on the adjoining property. Paula deBella, appellant, explained her problem with the Block Book Notification which never got her notice of this demolition permit. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the nature of the conditional use approval and how the BBN system is supposed to work, and how the proposal has changed since the Commission approved it. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI of DBI, explained how the notice requirements are met for demolitions and that the records show they were not met in this case. Dan Sullivan of Jaidin Consulting spoke for the permit holder and explained how the proposed building will affect the appellants and he said his client is willing to proceed with the project as it was at the Commission with the height discrepancy corrected. He noted that the location is in a Neighborhood Commercial district which has less restrictive standards than a residential district.

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 9:49 p.m.

_______________________ ________________________________

Arnold Y. K. Chin, President Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary

Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 348-0050.